Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:47 pm
TL;DR: Merchants are facing a rising chargeback burden, manual dispute handling, and fragmented operating models that erode profit and slow recovery, according to Riskified’s 2024 research with more than 300 chargeback managers. The operational issue is no longer dispute volume alone; the governance problem is whether chargeback handling can be measured, standardised, and scaled without drowning teams in manual work.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Riskified: Chargeback challenges and what you can do about them: Global insights 2024
By the numbers:
- Riskified partnered with industry advisors Paladin Fraud to interview more than 300 chargeback managers from leading merchants worldwide.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should merchants reduce manual friction in chargeback management?
A: Merchants should reduce manual friction by standardising evidence collection, triaging disputes by confidence level, and automating repeatable case types first.
Q: Why do chargeback disputes become harder to win as volumes rise?
A: They become harder to win because evidence quality and turnaround time usually degrade as case volume grows.
Q: What do merchants get wrong about chargeback automation?
A: Many merchants treat automation as a way to speed up the same workflow, rather than redesigning the workflow itself.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise dispute evidence requirements Define a single evidence checklist for chargeback cases so analysts use the same transaction, authentication, and fulfilment signals every time.
- Automate first-pass case triage Route disputes by reason code, amount, and available evidence so the highest-confidence cases are handled faster and the weakest cases escalate earlier.
- Retain authentication logs for dispute use Keep login, session, and access history in a form that chargeback teams can retrieve without ad hoc reconstruction.
What's in the full report
Riskified's full report covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Merchant interview findings from more than 300 chargeback managers across global regions
- Detailed breakdown of the biggest operational pain points in manual dispute handling
- Specific ways merchants can improve chargeback management and recover revenue more effectively
- Benchmark context on how merchants currently manage chargebacks in practice
👉 Read Riskified's 2024 report on chargeback challenges and merchant recovery →
Chargeback management chaos: what merchants need to fix now?
Explore further
11/07/2026 9:15 pm
Chargeback management has become an identity-adjacent governance problem. The report shows that the dispute process depends on trustworthy transaction records, authentication evidence, and consistent workflow ownership. That puts fraud operations in the same control conversation as IAM and auditability, because weak records undermine the ability to prove legitimacy. Merchants should treat chargeback evidence as governed identity-adjacent data, not as an afterthought.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when chargeback recovery performance declines?
A: Accountability should sit with the team that owns the end-to-end dispute workflow, not with individual analysts alone. That ownership must cover evidence standards, submission timing, exception handling, and reporting. Without a clear owner, losses tend to be blamed on volume rather than process quality.
👉 Read our full editorial: Chargeback management is shifting from cost control to recovery
