What Counts as Compelling Evidence for a Visa Dispute?

Like most things dispute-related, the answer is, "It depends." In this case, what counts as compelling evidence for a Visa dispute depends entirely on how the dispute is coded.

What counts isn't up to you, the merchant. Visa has a specific table in their documentation (Table 11-6) that spells out exactly what's allowed, and what's allowed depends on why the charge was disputed.¹

There are 17 types of evidence in that table. 16 out of the 17 types only apply to one specific scenario: someone claims fraud on an online or phone order (condition 10.4). If the dispute is about a different kind of fraud, like a counterfeit card used at a physical terminal (10.1) or other in-person fraud (10.3), the merchant only has one option, and even that one only works in very specific circumstances.

The problem is that a lot of fraud teams treat every dispute the same. They gather the usual evidence package: proof of delivery, address verification match, and send it in no matter what. But if the dispute is coded as in-person fraud, that evidence isn't just weak, it's literally not on the approved list. Visa's rules don't recognize it at all.

What is compelling evidence, and when can you use it?

Compelling Evidence is documentation an Acquirer submits at the pre-arbitration stage to prove the cardholder participated in, benefited from, or received the goods or services from a disputed transaction.²

It arrives late in the process, not early. A merchant responds to a dispute first, through the ordinary representment cycle. Only if the issuer isn't satisfied and the acquirer wants to escalate does Compelling Evidence enter, attached to a pre-arbitration attempt, within 30 calendar days of that attempt.³

That 30-day timing window matters because of what it does once it lands. An issuer receiving Compelling Evidence can't simply reject it and move on. Visa requires the issuer to certify one of two specific things before declining.³

Where the evidence is an AVS match on delivery, the issuer has to explain why that AVS code was issued if it's disputing the match.

Which of the 17 evidence types apply to your dispute condition?

Here's the table, condensed. "Applies to" reads directly off Table 11-6's column marks.¹

Is there any compelling evidence for a card-present fraud dispute?

There's only one narrow path, and it doesn't cover most card-present fraud at all. Item 15 applies exclusively to a US domestic transaction that was key-entered and did not take place at a chip-reading device: evidence that the same card was used in another undisputed transaction, or a copy of the cardholder's ID linked to a receipt or contract.¹

Item 15 is narrower than "card-present fraud." It's card-present fraud on a transaction that skipped the chip. A counterfeit-card dispute on a chip-read transaction has zero rows in Table 11-6. That is the exact scenario EMV liability shift exists to police. Outside the US, the same is true of every card-present fraud dispute, key-entered or not. There is no international row.

Do you need a cardholder signature to prove delivery?

No. For a card-absent delivery dispute, Visa explicitly does not require one. Item 3 accepts evidence that merchandise was delivered to the same physical address that returned an AVS match of Y or M, and states plainly that a signature isn't required as evidence of delivery.¹ The trust mechanism Visa recognizes is the address match, not a wet or digital signature. That distinction matters if your evidence process was built around collecting one.

However, item 2 allows a copy of ID presented at pickup as evidence, but a footnote to the table restates a separate rule: a merchant must not require positive identification as a condition of card acceptance, unless it's required elsewhere in the Visa Rules.¹ The ID has to have been offered, not demanded. A pickup process that mandates ID as a condition of releasing the order is compliant with nothing in Visa's table.

What wins a digital-goods fraud dispute?

If someone buys a digital product (an app, a download, a subscription) and then disputes the charge as fraud, you need three things to win: a description of what was sold, the date it was downloaded, and any two from a list of six identifiers.¹

A lot of teams think they need more than that: a full paper trail, name-and-email confirmation, detailed access logs. Visa's rule only asks for two.

The reason teams over-prepare is probably because there's a similar rule for other types of online fraud (item 10) that requires three out of six instead of two. People learn the three-of-six standard and apply it everywhere, not realizing digital goods have a lower bar.

What to do with this

Sort your fraud disputes by condition code before you build an evidence package. A 10.4 dispute has 16 possible rows to work from. A 10.1 or 10.3 dispute has one, and it likely doesn't apply. Building the same package for both wastes the pre-arbitration attempt on the condition that can't use it — and Visa requires the acquirer to screen for exactly that before submitting.⁴

Check whether your card-present fraud disputes are chip-read. If they are, and they're not US domestic key-entered transactions, Table 11-6 has nothing for you. Your response strategy for those disputes has to live in the standard representment cycle, not in Compelling Evidence. Treating it as a fallback for card-present fraud sets the team up to lose a pre-arbitration attempt that should never have been filed.

Drop signature collection from your card-absent delivery evidence, and confirm your AVS match instead.

Audit your digital-goods package against the two-of-six bar, not against whatever your team has historically collected. If you're gathering five identifiers where two would clear the row, that's process cost with no evidentiary return.

Related

• Visa Compelling Evidence 3.0 (CE3.0): Qualifying Criteria and Evidence Requirements
• VAMP Explained: Thresholds, Exclusions, and What Actually Lowers Your Ratio
• Does Rapid Dispute Resolution (RDR) Remove Chargebacks from Your VAMP Ratio?
• Chargeback Response Deadlines by Network and Reason Code
• Chargeback Glossary

Sources

1. Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules, 18 April 2026 edition, §11.5.1 "Use of Compelling Evidence," Table 11-6 "Allowable Compelling Evidence," Rule ID 0030221, pp.677–683. visa-rules-public.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

2. Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules, 18 April 2026 edition, Glossary, "Compelling Evidence," Rule ID 0026824, p.846. ↩

3. Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules, 18 April 2026 edition, §11.4, Table 11-1 "Dispute Resolution Process Steps – Category 10 (Fraud) and Category 11 (Authorization)," "Pre-Arbitration Response," p.669. ↩ ↩²

4. Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules, 18 April 2026 edition, §11.5.1, Rule ID 0030221, p.677: "An Acquirer must not process an invalid pre-Arbitration and must conduct an adequate due diligence review of the pre-Arbitration to ensure compliance with the Visa Rules." ↩