# Chargeback metrics: which count puts my account at risk?
Source: https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/metrics

Last updated 23 October 2026.

This page measures your own dispute work: your ratio, your win rate when you fight, and what each chargeback costs you. Looking for [program thresholds](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/compliance/metrics/) or [normal ranges](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/reference/benchmarks/)?

Did your processor's email name a program - VAMP, ECM or HECM? Those need a minimum count as well as a bad percentage, and plenty of merchants have one without the other, so check the thresholds page. If it only quoted you a ratio, stay here.

TL;DR

-   Start with your warning or provider's written policy
-   Ask whether it's an account review or a named network program
-   Record the count, denominator and reporting period
-   A win doesn't remove a filed dispute from Shopify's chargeback rate
-   Keep recovered dollars separate from the cases counted

A count or percentage isn't a safety promise, so ask which policy, measure, cases and dates your provider's using. Keep the warning beside the report while you check.

## How many chargebacks until I'm shut down?

A chargeback count by itself isn't a safe limit. Start with the notice, rather than a guessed cutoff. Ask whether it's your provider's account review or a named program, because those aren't interchangeable questions. Shopify, for example, reviews accounts for its own dispute-resolution program. Its decision can involve dispute history and business practices. VENDOR [Shopify's program guide](https://help.shopify.com/en/manual/payments/chargebacks/network-dispute-resolution-programs).

Write down the measure and any minimum count named, along with its reporting dates and action deadline. The denominator is the transactions counted beneath the rate. Get that definition before comparing two percentages.

Ask your provider:

> Is this your account review or a named network program? Which written policy applies to my account? Which cases and dates are in this measure? What needs a response, and by when?

For program details, [look up the named network program](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/). For a rising-rate warning, [start with Chargeback Ratio Crisis](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/zero-point-nine-panic/). Keep the current notice beside those guides.

Where to go next

-   [I've received a processor warning](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/processor-warnings/)
-   [The same customer's disputing again](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/fraud/types/friendly-fraud/#same-charge-again)
-   [My notice names a network program](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/)

## Which count and which month am I looking at?

Keep one row for each report definition, naming the provider, network, payment method and merchant account. Add its count and the transactions eligible beneath it, along with both reporting periods and the report timestamp. You'll need those when two charts don't agree.

Stripe's dispute activity uses the dispute date, while its dispute rate uses the original charge date. You'll find activity in Analytics and rate in Radar. Stripe counts won and lost disputes in its rate. Recent charge-date rates can still change as disputes arrive. VENDOR [Stripe's measuring guide](https://docs.stripe.com/disputes/measuring).

For Shopify Payments, winning doesn't remove a filed dispute from its chargeback rate, which counts filed disputes rather than outcomes. Shopify distinguishes standard and NDRP-inclusive rates, with the latter also counting disputes resolved automatically through network dispute resolution programs. Use the definition for the report you're reading. VENDOR [Shopify's rate definitions](https://help.shopify.com/en/manual/payments/chargebacks/chargeback-process#understanding-your-chargeback-rate).

Ask about each report you're trying to reconcile:

> Which date does this chart use? Which payments are eligible in its denominator? How does it treat won and automatically resolved disputes?

Keep the dollars recovered in a separate column, because they're useful but don't define the dispute count.

## Can one customer's cases change the number?

Match each case ID to its payment and report line, then check whether several notices refer to the same case. Ask whether another notice created a new counted event, leaving uncertain events unknown until your provider explains them. Don't subtract a won case or deduplicate its report yourself.

Give support the IDs, without guessing at a formula:

> These case IDs map to these payment IDs. Which ones counted in this report? Can you explain any difference?

A recovered payment isn't proof the event has disappeared, since Stripe and Shopify both count wins in the rates above. That doesn't establish another provider's definition or recovery timing.

## Who do I reply to, and by when?

Keep the notice, report and proposed next action together. Ask the named contact to confirm the owner and date. If you're handling it alone, keep the reply with your records. [Use the processor-warning steps](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/processor-warnings/).

Say to support:

> I've saved the notice dated \[date\]. Please confirm the action, owner and deadline for my account.

### Scale Callout

With few payments, inspect the cases behind the percentage. With several merchant accounts, keep their reports separate. Ask your provider before combining their counts or periods.

### Where This Breaks

Two charts can use different dates and definitions. One chart's percentage won't answer another program's test. Check what it's counting before deciding you're clear.

### Test to Run

Use made-up payments and cases to reconcile one labelled report. Include a later dispute, a won case and repeated notices. The worksheet should record dates, case IDs and payment IDs. If it can't explain a counted event, ask the provider. It shouldn't silently remove wins or repeated notices.

## Ratio, response and cost summary

In short

-   **Ratio targets**: Track your processor's written limit and the applicable network program's ratio and count together
-   **Operational targets**: Record a decision on every dispute before the notice's deadline. Set internal response-time targets early enough to meet it
-   **Financial tracking**: Net CB loss = Gross - Recovered; CB fees $0 to $30 each
-   Segment by: reason code, channel (CNP vs. CP), product type, customer segment, BIN/issuer
-   See [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) for threshold details

Your chargeback ratio is the single most important number in payment risk. Go above the network thresholds and you face monthly fines, mandatory remediation, and potential account termination. These metrics tell you where you stand, whether you're trending in the right direction, and where to focus your efforts.

limit

Ask your processor which metric and deadline apply

$0-30

Published US processor fee per dispute (most charge $15)

By code

Track your own representment win rate

```mermaid
flowchart LR
    A[Ratio rising] --> B[Check causes and limits]
    B --> C[Approaching a limit<br/>Start remediation]
    C --> D[Warning received<br/>Confirm metric and deadline]
    D --> E[Respond and track results]

    style A fill:#1f6f4a,color:#fff
    style B fill:#9a5b00,color:#fff
    style C fill:#b42318,color:#fff
    style D fill:#7f1d1d,color:#fff
    style E fill:#000,color:#fff
```

| Situation | Limit or condition | What to do |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Ratio rising** | Check counts, volume and reason codes | Investigate causes |
| **Approaching a limit** | Your processor's written metric and limit | Start remediation before you reach it |
| **Processor warning** | The notice's metric, deadline and required response | Contact your processor and track progress |
| **VAMP Merchant Excessive** | Regional ratio, count and acquirer conditions; see [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) | Confirm identification and fees with your acquirer |
| **Termination notice** | Check the effective date and [MATCH](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/match-tmf/) conditions | Get the reason in writing and follow the notice |

_Visa VAMP (effective April 2025) replaced the old VDMP/VFMP programs and changed how ratios are calculated. It counts TC40 fraud reports plus TC15 disputes over settled CNP transactions in the same month, with exclusions. See [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) for the formula and current thresholds._

There isn't a universal ratio chart for warning, monitoring or termination. Use your processor's limit and the [published program conditions](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/).

## Ratio Metrics

| Metric | Calculation | Network Threshold |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Chargeback Ratio** | Chargebacks / Transactions | Your processor's limit; see [Monitoring Thresholds](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/monitoring/thresholds/) |
| **Dispute Ratio** | Use the named program's numerator and reporting months | ECM entry needs both count and ratio tests; see [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) |
| **Fraud Ratio (Mastercard EFM)** | This month's Mastercard fraud chargeback count / prior-month Mastercard sales count | EFM has other entry tests and regional differences; see [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) |

### How to Calculate Your Chargeback Ratio

The card networks use different monitoring formulas:

**Visa VAMP:**

```text
VAMP Ratio (%) = Eligible (TC40 fraud reports + TC15 disputes) this month
                 / Settled Visa CNP transactions this month x 100
```

Visa's public fact sheet excludes qualifying pre-dispute resolutions and CE 3.0 fraud, depending on data-extract timing. Use the [sourced formula and exclusions](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/), not a chargebacks-only estimate.

**The catch:** a dispute can arrive months after the sale. It belongs to the reporting month, not the sale month. Ask your acquirer for its official monthly figures.

**Mastercard's method:**

```text
Dispute Ratio (%) = This month's first Mastercard chargebacks / Prior month's Mastercard sales count x 100

Example:
  60 Mastercard chargebacks in February / 7,500 Mastercard sales in January x 100 = 0.80%
```

Mastercard uses the previous month's transaction count as the denominator, which means the ratio can swing more with seasonal volume changes.

The Denominator Matters

If your transaction volume drops (seasonal slowdown, marketing pause, site issue) but chargebacks keep arriving from prior months, your ratio spikes even though your fraud didn't get worse. Watch your ratio during low-volume months. A business doing 10,000 transactions/month with 50 chargebacks (0.5%) that drops to 5,000 transactions/month with the same 50 chargebacks is suddenly at 1.0%. That's the arithmetic, not proof of program enrollment. Check the applicable ratio and count together.

### Ratio vs. Count: Both Matter

Network monitoring programs require more than a percentage. Visa's VAMP merchant tests depend on region and acquirer status, with fraud reports and disputes combined. Mastercard's ECM needs 100-299 chargebacks and a 1.50-2.99% ratio together. Clear 300 and 3.00% at the same time and it's HECM. Its base assessment matches ECM in month 2, then doubles from month 3. Your processor can apply its own limits; get them in writing. See [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/). A chargeback count alone can't settle VAMP because it also counts fraud reports.

For example, 200 Mastercard chargebacks over 100,000 prior-month Mastercard sales is a 0.2% ratio. That doesn't meet ECM's ratio test. It doesn't settle Visa VAMP, EFM or your processor's own limits.

## Operational Metrics

| Metric | Definition | Target |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Win Rate** | Won representments / Representments with final outcomes | Track by reason code and allow comparable follow-up |
| **Response Rate** | Cases with a recorded decision / Total received | Review every case before its deadline |
| **Response Time** | Days to record and carry out the decision | Set an internal target before the notice's deadline |
| **Recovery Rate** | Recovered $ / Total CB $ | Compare like-for-like cases over a fixed recovery window |

### Win Rate: What's Realistic

Track your own win rate by reason code. Compare results for the cases you actually fight.

Win rate varies dramatically by reason code:

| Reason Code Category | What the Defense Depends On |
| --- | --- |
| "Not received" (with tracking) | Delivery proof is strong evidence |
| Fraud (with 3DS/CE 3.0) | Authentication data is compelling |
| Fraud (without 3DS) | Hard to prove without authentication |
| "Not as described" | Subjective, hard to disprove |
| "Cancelled recurring" | Depends on cancellation proof |
| "Unrecognized" | Descriptor issue, hard to fight |

Track [your own win rate by reason code](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/metrics/) rather than relying on a general figure.

**Worked example, using assumed win rates:** Don't fight every chargeback equally. Invest your time in categories where you can win. An "unrecognized" chargeback for $30 with a 10% win rate isn't worth 45 minutes of staff time. A $300 "not received" with tracking data and a 70% win rate is. For what evidence actually wins by reason code, see [Winning Evidence](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/winning-evidence/#evidence-by-dispute-type).

### Response Rate: Always 100%

Review every chargeback and record whether you'll accept or challenge it. Submit evidence when it answers the claim and the likely recovery justifies the work. Valid disputes can be accepted; evidence isn't a requirement to contest every loss.

Use the response date on the notice. If an alert already resolved the matter, confirm the case status before doing anything else. VENDOR [Stripe's response guide](https://docs.stripe.com/disputes/responding), checked 22 October 2026.

### Recovery Rate: The Financial Bottom Line

```text
Recovery Rate = Dollars recovered through representment / Total chargeback dollars

Example:
  Assumed cohort: $12,000 across 12 chargebacks
  Fought 10 out of 12 (the two under $25 weren't worth fighting)
  Won 5 of 10; assume those five total $7,500 recovered
  Case win rate = 5 / 10 x 100 = 50%
  Dollar recovery rate = $7,500 / $12,000 x 100 = 62.5%
```

Compare recovery on the same reason codes, claim sizes and follow-up window. A low recovery rate can reflect case mix or decisions not to fight, as well as evidence quality. Inspect the cases before changing the process.

## Financial Impact

| Metric | Definition | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Gross CB Loss** | Total chargeback volume | Before recoveries |
| **Net CB Loss** | Gross - Recovered | True P&L impact |
| **CB Fee Cost** | Fees per chargeback | $0 to $30 each, [verified table](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/payments/total-cost-model/#step-2-chargeback-costs-often-underestimated) |
| **Program Fee Risk** | Monitoring assessments and processor pass-through | Depends on the program, billable events and identification history; see [the sourced schedules](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) |

### The Real Cost of a Chargeback

A single chargeback costs more than the transaction amount:

Track reversed revenue separately from cash costs. Don't add the sale amount and product cost into a single cash-loss total.

```text
Example only: $200 physical-goods order, chargeback lost
  Original receipt                         +$200
  Chargeback reversal                      -$200
  Goods delivered and not returned           -$80
  Assumed chargeback fee                     -$15
  Assumed response labour                    -$30
  Net cash result = $200 - $200 - $80 - $15 - $30 = -$125
```

That's $125 of cash loss under these assumptions. The $200 reversal is lost revenue, shown separately. If replacement sales contribute an assumed 20% after their costs, $125 / 20% = $625 of extra sales covers that cash loss. This excludes the profit the original order would have earned.

### Program Fee Risk

A percentage alone doesn't tell you the bill. Check the full entry tests, prior identifications, billable events and your acquirer's pass-through.

| Visa VAMP situation | What to check |
| --- | --- |
| First identification after no identification in the preceding 12 months | Nuvei describes three consecutive grace months |
| After that grace period | A subsequent identification can incur fees immediately |
| Merchant Excessive | Acquirer sources report US$8 per TC40 fraud report or TC15 dispute, subject to scope and exclusions |

[Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/#fee-structure) carries the dated fee sources and [grace conditions](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/#timeline-and-remediation). REPORTED Checked 22 October 2026.

**Worked example, assumed inputs:** your acquirer confirms 1,500 billable events at US$8 each, after grace, with full pass-through and no fee exclusions. That's 1,500 x US$8 = **US$12,000**, on top of regular dispute costs. This is fee arithmetic, not an entry test. Two hundred chargebacks alone don't establish U.S. merchant excessive: that needs at least 1.5% AND 1,500 combined fraud reports and disputes when the acquirer isn't Above Standard or Excessive.

## Segmentation

Track metrics by:

-   **[Reason code](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/reference/reason-codes/) category** ([fraud](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/fraud/types/) vs. non-fraud)
-   **Transaction channel** (CNP vs. CP)
-   **Product type** (digital goods have higher dispute rates)
-   **Customer segment** (new vs. returning)
-   **BIN/Issuer** (some issuers file more disputes)

### Segmentation That Actually Helps

```mermaid
%%{init: {'themeVariables': {'pieStrokeColor': '#8b5cf6', 'pieOuterStrokeColor': '#8b5cf6', 'pieSectionTextColor': '#fff', 'pie1': '#ef4444', 'pie2': '#f59e0b', 'pie3': '#3b82f6', 'pie4': '#8b5cf6', 'pie5': '#6b7280'}}}%%
pie title Example Chargeback Reason Distribution
    "Fraud / Unauthorized" : 35
    "Not Recognized" : 25
    "Product Not Received" : 20
    "Not as Described" : 12
    "Other / Processing" : 8
```

The most useful segmentation for most merchants:

**By reason code:** Tells you whether your problem is fraud, fulfillment, billing confusion, or policy. If 60% of your chargebacks are "unrecognized," fix your billing descriptor. If 60% are "not received," fix your shipping confirmation.

**By new vs. returning customers:** High dispute rates from new customers suggest fraud. High dispute rates from returning customers suggest product or service issues.

**By product/SKU:** One problem product can drive your entire chargeback ratio. A single high-return item attracting disputes is cheaper to pull from your catalog than to fight.

## Test to Run

**Chargeback source audit:**

1.  Export your last 30 days of chargebacks.
2.  Categorize each by reason code (fraud, not received, not as described, billing, other).
3.  For each category, note: could this have been prevented with a refund, an alert, a descriptor fix, or better evidence?
4.  Calculate your win rate per reason code category.
5.  Identify the single category that accounts for the most chargebacks. That's your highest-leverage fix.

**Success criteria:** You can name your top chargeback reason code and have a specific action to reduce it. If "unrecognized" is your top category, fix your billing descriptor this week. If "not received" is top, audit your shipping confirmation process.

## Scale Callout

| Volume | What to Track | How |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Under $50K/month** | Chargeback count, ratio (monthly) | Check processor dashboard weekly. A single chargeback can swing your ratio at low volume, so trend over 90 days. |
| **$50K-$250K/month** | Add: win rate, response time, reason code breakdown | Monthly spreadsheet. Set a decision target before the notice's deadline; accept valid cases and challenge cases with a defensible response. |
| **$250K-$1M/month** | Add: recovery rate, cost per chargeback, segmentation by product | Weekly reporting. Set an internal alert before your processor's limit. |
| **Over $1M/month** | All metrics, segmented by BIN/issuer, product, geography | Automated dashboards. Dedicated dispute owner. Real-time ratio monitoring. |

## Where This Breaks

-   **Low volume ratio swings.** Under 2,000 transactions/month, a single bad week can push your ratio above thresholds even if your fraud rate is normal. Don't panic over one month. Trend over 90 days.
-   **Mixing CP and CNP chargebacks.** Card-present transactions rarely generate disputes. If you combine them with CNP, your ratio looks better than it is. Segment.
-   **Automatically resolved disputes.** Check the report definition. Shopify's standard and NDRP-inclusive rates treat these differently. [Use the provider definitions](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/metrics/#which-count-and-month).
-   **Ignoring the denominator.** A chargeback ratio can spike because chargebacks went up OR because transaction volume went down. Check both numbers before reacting.
-   **Treating all chargebacks equally.** A $20 chargeback and a $2,000 chargeback count the same toward your ratio, but the response strategy should be very different.

## What to Do When...

**Ratio approaches your processor's limit:**

1.  This is your cue to act. Confirm the metric and leave time for remediation.
2.  [Set up chargeback alerts](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/prevention/alerts/) (Verifi/Ethoca) immediately if you haven't already. These deflect disputes before they become chargebacks.
3.  Review your top 5 reason codes. The fix is different for each.
4.  See [Reduce Chargebacks Fast](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/playbooks/reduce-chargebacks-fast/) for the full emergency playbook.

**Processor warning arrives or a limit is breached:**

1.  Check the notice's metric and deadline. See the [emergency response](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/zero-point-nine-panic/).
2.  Contact your processor proactively. They'll find out anyway. Being proactive shows you're taking it seriously.
3.  Implement every quick win: alerts, descriptor fix, refund policy liberalization.

**Win rate drops:**

1.  Check if your evidence quality has degraded. Are you still submitting complete evidence packs?
2.  Segment by reason code. A new fraud pattern may be generating chargebacks you can't win.
3.  Review [Compelling Evidence](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/representment/compelling-evidence/) for what wins by reason code.
4.  Compare likely recovery with the cost of responding. If a dispute is already open, decide whether to accept or challenge it through your provider; don't send a separate refund.

**Chargebacks spike suddenly:**

1.  Check for a pattern: same product, same BIN range, same geography, same day.
2.  If it's fraud: tighten rules immediately, check for a card testing attack or compromised credentials.
3.  If it's fulfillment: check for a shipping delay, product issue, or service outage that affected a batch of customers.
4.  If it's billing: check if a subscription renewal batch just went out, or if a pricing change confused customers.

## Next Steps

**Setting up tracking?**

1.  [Understand the lifecycle](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/lifecycle/) - Know what you're measuring
2.  [Review network thresholds](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) - Set internal targets below limits
3.  [Build your dashboard](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/compliance/metrics/) - Combine with compliance metrics

**Ratio too high?**

1.  [Check Chargeback Ratio Crisis](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/zero-point-nine-panic/) - Emergency response
2.  [Set up alerts](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/prevention/alerts/) - Deflect before they hit
3.  [Follow the playbook](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/playbooks/reduce-chargebacks-fast/) - Step-by-step guide

**Optimizing win rate?**

1.  [Study compelling evidence](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/representment/compelling-evidence/) - Know what wins
2.  [Improve representment process](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/representment/) - Systematic approach
3.  [Segment by reason code](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/reference/reason-codes/) - Focus on winnable disputes

* * *

Other Metrics Pages

Tracking chargebacks is just one piece. See also: [Payments Metrics](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/payments/metrics/) · [Fraud Metrics](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/fraud/metrics/) · [Compliance Metrics](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/compliance/metrics/) · [Operations Metrics](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/operations/metrics/)

## Related Topics

-   [Chargeback Lifecycle](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/lifecycle/) - Understanding dispute flow
-   [Network Programs](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/reference/network-programs/) - VAMP, ECM thresholds
-   [Fraud Metrics](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/fraud/metrics/) - Related fraud measurement
-   [Representment](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/representment/) - Fighting disputes
-   [Compelling Evidence](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/representment/compelling-evidence/) - Winning representment
-   [Chargeback Prevention](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/prevention/) - Reducing disputes
-   [Chargeback Alerts](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/prevention/alerts/) - Pre-dispute resolution
-   [Monitoring Thresholds](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/monitoring/thresholds/) - Network limits
-   [Dispute Monitoring](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/compliance/network-rules/dispute-monitoring/) - Compliance requirements
-   [Chargeback Ratio Crisis](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/zero-point-nine-panic/) - Emergency response
-   [Friendly Fraud](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/fraud/types/friendly-fraud/) - First-party abuse
-   [Refund Policy](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/refund-policy/) - When to refund vs fight
-   [Refund Strategy](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/chargebacks/refund-strategy/) - Operational refund decisions
-   [Running Fraud Operations](https://paymentsandrisk.com/docs/operations/running-fraud-operations/) - Operational cadence

## Sources

| Source | Supports | Opened |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [Stripe: Measuring disputes](https://docs.stripe.com/disputes/measuring) VENDOR | Dispute-date activity, charge-date rate, Dashboard locations, won/lost counting and recent-rate changes | 2026-10-21 |
| [Shopify: Understanding your chargeback rate](https://help.shopify.com/en/manual/payments/chargebacks/chargeback-process#understanding-your-chargeback-rate) VENDOR | Filed disputes remain after wins; standard and NDRP-inclusive definitions | 2026-10-21 |
| [Shopify: Network dispute resolution programs](https://help.shopify.com/en/manual/payments/chargebacks/network-dispute-resolution-programs) VENDOR | Provider account review and NDRP-inclusive scope, separate from a universal shutdown count | 2026-10-21 |