Visa Reason Codes: VCR Workflows, Deadlines, and How to Choose
Visa Claims Resolution explained: Allocation vs Collaboration workflows, filing deadlines, and CE 3.0 eligibility. Per-code lookup is in the reason-code tool.
Visa's VCR: 4 categories, 2 workflows — Allocation for Fraud/Authorization, Collaboration for Processing Errors/Consumer Disputes. 30-day merchant response throughout; CE 3.0 eligible: 10.4 only. Per-code lookup is in the reason-code tool; this is the strategy explainer.
Visa Claims Resolution (VCR) organizes disputes into four categories — Fraud (10.x), Authorization (11.x), Processing Errors (12.x), and Consumer Disputes (13.x) — across two workflows. Fraud and Authorization codes use Allocation, where liability is auto-assigned from network data; Processing Errors and Consumer Disputes use Collaboration, an evidence exchange between issuer, acquirer, and merchant. Merchant response deadline is 30 days for every code; maximum resolution runs to 70 days under Allocation and 100 under Collaboration. Only code 10.4 (Other Fraud — Card-Absent) is CE 3.0 eligible, automatic since October 17, 2025 for merchants on Visa Secure or Visa Data Only. April 2024 folded Late Presentment (12.1) into 11.3. For a code's name and category, use PaymentBrief's reason-code lookup tool; this article covers how the workflows operate and how to choose a code.
How Visa Claims Resolution actually operates: why disputes split into two workflows rather than one, what determines your filing deadline, which single code carries a real defense exception, and how to work out which code applies to a given dispute. For a specific code's name and workflow, the reason-code lookup tool is the canonical per-code reference — this article is the strategy layer underneath it. For the narrative explanation of how VCR works in production — why the two-workflow split matters, how CE 3.0 auto-qualification changed defense economics, and how VAMP enforcement affects code-level strategy — see Scheme Chargeback Rules in 2026.
Quick reference: all active codes
All 23 active VCR dispute conditions, by category, as enumerated in the Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules (18 April 2026 edition). Corrected 2026-08-27: this table previously listed 15 and described itself as complete. It was missing eight conditions — 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 — all of which are fully specified in the rulebook with their own dispute reasons, invalid-dispute rules and time limits. For each code's full name, workflow assignment, and defense notes, use the reason-code lookup tool linked above — it is the canonical per-code reference and stays current as Visa updates the code set. The category tables further down this page cover triggers and defense strategy by code.
| Code | Category |
|---|---|
| 10.1 | Fraud |
| 10.2 | Fraud |
| 10.3 | Fraud |
| 10.4 | Fraud |
| 10.5 | Fraud |
| 11.1 | Authorization |
| 11.2 | Authorization |
| 11.3 | Authorization |
| 12.2 | Processing Errors |
| 12.3 | Processing Errors |
| 12.4 — Incorrect Account Number | Processing Errors |
| 12.5 — Incorrect Amount | Processing Errors |
| 12.6 — Duplicate Processing / Paid by Other Means | Processing Errors |
| 12.7 — Invalid Data | Processing Errors |
| 13.1 | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.2 | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.3 | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.4 | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.5 | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.6 — Credit Not Processed | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.7 — Cancelled Merchandise / Services | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.8 — Original Credit Transaction Not Accepted | Consumer Disputes |
| 13.9 — Non-Receipt of Cash at an ATM | Consumer Disputes |
Merchant initial response deadline: 30 days across all codes. Maximum dispute resolution timeline: 70 days (Allocation) or 100 days (Collaboration).
Fraud (10.x) — Allocation workflow
Fraud codes use Visa's Allocation workflow: liability is auto-assigned based on network data without a full issuer-merchant evidence exchange. The defense surface is narrower than Collaboration disputes — but 10.4 has the CE 3.0 exception, where historical transaction evidence can reverse the auto-allocation.
| Code | Trigger | Defense notes |
|---|---|---|
| 10.1 | Counterfeit card used at a non-EMV-capable terminal | Liability typically shifts to acquirer/merchant. Limited merchant defense surface. |
| 10.2 | Legitimate card used fraudulently at a non-EMV terminal | Same liability dynamics as 10.1. |
| 10.3 | Unauthorized in-person transaction (card-present fraud) | Cardholder claims fraud at point of sale. |
| 10.4 | Unauthorized card-not-present transaction | The highest-volume fraud code for e-commerce. Only code eligible for CE 3.0 defense (see below). |
| 10.5 | Disputes initiated via the former VFMP | Code retained for legacy disputes. New monitoring runs through VAMP. |
CE 3.0 (10.4 only): Visa Compelling Evidence 3.0 lets merchants reverse a 10.4 chargeback by submitting two prior undisputed transactions from the same cardholder, dated 120–365 days before the disputed transaction. From October 17, 2025, merchants on Visa Secure or Visa Data Only receive automatic CE 3.0 qualification — no manual filing required. CE 3.0-resolved disputes are excluded from the VAMP ratio. For full mechanics see the source article.
Authorization (11.x) — Allocation workflow
| Code | Trigger | Defense notes |
|---|---|---|
| 11.1 | Transaction flagged via Card Recovery Bulletin | Acquirer/processor handling — limited merchant action surface. |
| 11.2 | Transaction processed despite a declined authorization | Defense rare; processing-stage error. |
| 11.3 | No authorization requested, authorization expired, transaction amount exceeded authorization, or late presentment | Late Presentment (12.1) merged into 11.3 in April 2024, and 11.3 was renamed "No Authorization/Late Presentment." Separately, the pre-2018 legacy 2-digit codes were retired at VCR's 2018 launch and distributed across the new structure: former code 72 (No Authorization) is the closest predecessor of today's 11.3, while former code 71 (Declined Authorization) maps to 11.2, not 11.3. Legacy documentation referencing 12.1 or the pre-2018 code numbers as active is out of date. |
Processing Errors (12.x) — Collaboration workflow
After the April 2024 consolidation moved Late Presentment (12.1) into 11.3, this category is materially thinner than it used to be.
| Code | Trigger | Defense notes |
|---|---|---|
| 12.2 | Incorrect transaction code submitted in authorization | Processing-stage error; acquirer typically resolves. |
| 12.3 | Incorrect currency submitted | Currency mismatch between authorization and clearing. |
| 12.4 | Incorrect Account Number — the account debited does not match the one on the transaction receipt | Compare the cleared PAN against your own authorization record; usually a keying or file-mapping error rather than a merchant-behaviour dispute. |
| 12.5 | Incorrect Amount — the amount cleared differs from the amount authorized or agreed | Signed receipt or checkout total against the clearing amount. Watch tip, surcharge and currency-conversion handling, which are the usual causes. |
| 12.6 | Duplicate Processing / Paid by Other Means — a single transaction cleared more than once, or the cardholder paid by another method | Idempotency keys and settlement-file dedupe are the real defence; for paid-by-other-means, evidence of the alternative tender being refunded or never applied. |
| 12.7 | Invalid Data — the transaction was submitted with data that does not meet Visa's requirements | Field-level validation at submission. This is an acquirer/processor hygiene issue more often than a merchant one. |
Consumer Disputes (13.x) — Collaboration workflow
These codes use the Collaboration workflow — back-and-forth evidence exchange between issuer, acquirer, and merchant, up to 100 days to resolve. Active engagement and documentation matter here in a way they don't for Allocation disputes.
| Code | Trigger | Defense notes |
|---|---|---|
| 13.1 | Cardholder claims goods or services were not delivered or arrived late | High volume for marketplaces, digital goods, and logistics-heavy merchants. Tracking and delivery confirmation are the primary defenses. |
| 13.2 | Transaction charged after the cardholder cancelled a recurring arrangement | High volume for SaaS and subscription operators. Cancellation timestamps, retention save attempts, and policy ToS are the defense surface. |
| 13.3 | Merchandise defective or materially different from representation | Photos, shipping condition records, return policy compliance. |
| 13.4 | Cardholder claims goods are counterfeit | Authentication documentation, sourcing records. |
| 13.5 | False advertising or misrepresented transaction terms | Marketing copy archive, ToS at point of purchase. |
| 13.6 | Credit Not Processed — a promised refund or credit was not issued | The single most avoidable code on this list. Refund timestamps and the credit's own transaction record close it; a slow refund queue converts directly into disputes here. |
| 13.7 | Cancelled Merchandise / Services — the cardholder cancelled within the merchant's own stated terms and was still charged | Cancellation timestamp against your published policy. Closely related to 13.2, but keyed to a cancellation the merchant's terms permitted rather than a recurring arrangement. |
| 13.8 | Original Credit Transaction Not Accepted — an OCT was refused by the recipient or could not be accepted | Relevant to payout and disbursement flows rather than acceptance. Evidence is the OCT's own response and the recipient's account status. |
| 13.9 | Non-Receipt of Cash at an ATM — cash was not dispensed | ATM acquirers only; resolved from terminal journals and cash-balancing records, not merchant evidence. |
For SaaS and subscription operators, dispute mix tends to be dominated by 10.4 (fraud) and 13.2 (cancelled recurring). For physical e-commerce, the dominant pair is 10.4 and 13.1 (item not received). Defense strategy should be built around your actual code distribution, not the full code list.
Filing Deadlines and Resolution Timelines
Every VCR code carries the same 30-day merchant initial response deadline — VCR did not carry over the per-code deadline variation some legacy code sets had. What varies is how long the full dispute can run before it must resolve, and that split follows the workflow, not the category:
| Workflow | Codes | Merchant response | Maximum resolution | What "resolution" means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation | 10.x (Fraud), 11.x (Authorization) | 30 days | 70 days | Liability is assigned from network data; a merchant's response requests a reversal of an assignment already made, not a first-round evidence exchange |
| Collaboration | 12.x (Processing Errors), 13.x (Consumer Disputes) | 30 days | 100 days | A genuine back-and-forth: issuer submits a claim, merchant responds, issuer can re-present, merchant can re-respond, within the 100-day ceiling |
The practical implication: an Allocation dispute that isn't resolved by CE 3.0 or an equally strong first-round submission rarely gets a second chance — there is no structured re-presentment step built into that workflow the way there is under Collaboration. Collaboration disputes reward a documented, iterative defense; Allocation disputes reward getting the strongest possible evidence into the one submission that counts.
How to Choose the Right Code
Reason code assignment is normally the issuer's call, not the merchant's — a merchant defending a chargeback receives the code the issuer assigned and works within it. Two situations put code judgment in an operator's own hands: configuring a dispute-response or representment tool, and pre-dispute triage on whether a case is worth contesting at all. In both, the same four questions do the work.
Start with the workflow, not the category. The first fact that matters operationally is Allocation vs Collaboration, because it determines whether the defense is a one-shot evidentiary submission (Allocation) or an iterative exchange (Collaboration). Category tells you what happened; workflow tells you how you're allowed to respond.
Check the CE 3.0 gate before building a 10.4 defense. Every other fraud code has a narrow defense surface under Allocation — the auto-assignment from network data is largely final. 10.4 is the one exception: with two prior undisputed transactions from the same cardholder dated 120–365 days before the disputed one, CE 3.0 is very likely to resolve it in the merchant's favor, and from October 17, 2025 that qualification is automatic for merchants on Visa Secure or Visa Data Only.
For 13.x codes, match the defense to the specific claim, not the category. "Consumer Disputes" is not one defense strategy — 13.1 (not received) needs delivery and tracking evidence, 13.2 (cancelled recurring) needs cancellation timestamps and ToS, 13.3 (defective) needs condition records at shipment. One generic evidence packet built for "13.x" produces weak submissions across all of them. For the full evidence packet by scenario — what to assemble, in what order, and which requirements are scheme rule versus operator judgment — see the chargeback evidence operator reference.
Weight defense investment by actual code distribution, not the full code list. SaaS operators cluster on 10.4 and 13.2; physical e-commerce clusters on 10.4 and 13.1, as noted above. Spending equal effort preparing for 12.x processing-error disputes a merchant rarely sees, while under-resourcing the 10.4/13.2 volume that actually arrives, is optimizing for the wrong distribution.
Code-level changes that matter (2018–2026)
| Date | Change | Operator impact |
|---|---|---|
| April 2018 | VCR launched; 22 legacy codes replaced with 4-category structure | The original consolidation. Two-workflow split (Allocation vs Collaboration) introduced. |
| April 2024 | 12.1 (Late Presentment) merged into 11.3 (renamed No Authorization/Late Presentment) | Late Presentment is now an Authorization dispute (Allocation workflow). Legacy documentation referencing 12.1 as active is out of date. |
| March 31, 2025 | VDMP and VFMP retired; rolled into VAMP | Single consolidated monitoring metric across fraud and non-fraud disputes. |
| October 17, 2025 | CE 3.0 auto-qualification activates for merchants on Visa Secure / Visa Data Only | 10.4 defense becomes automated for enrolled merchants. CE 3.0-resolved disputes excluded from VAMP. |
| April 1, 2026 | VAMP merchant Excessive threshold drops from 2.2% to 1.5% (NA/EU/APAC) | High-dispute-rate merchants enter Excessive territory at a lower ratio. |
| April 17, 2026 | CE 3.0 fee structure introduced for successful qualifications | Confirm fee schedule with your acquirer. |
Related references
- Scheme Chargeback Rules in 2026 — narrative explanation of VCR workflows, CE 3.0 mechanics, VAMP enforcement, and Mastercard Mastercom comparison.
- Mastercard Mastercom Dispute Categories Reference — Mastercard scheme equivalent reference page.
- VAMP Operator Guide — full VAMP mechanics, fee structure, and remediation playbook.
- Chargeback Representment Playbook — merchant-side defense strategy by code type.
- AI Chargeback Representment Automation — automating defense for 10.4 disputes.
- Pre-Dispute Tools: RDR, CDRN, Ethoca — section in the source article covering Visa RDR, Verifi CDRN, and Mastercard Ethoca Alerts.
For term definitions — chargeback, dispute, authorization, chargeback ratio — see the Payments Glossary.
By Shaun Toh · Director, Digital Payments · Razer