Topic starter
22/08/2026 12:00 pm
TL;DR: Payment fraud and chargebacks are no longer separate operational problems, with Sift’s analysis showing a 19% year-over-year rise in chargebacks and merchants absorbing $4.61 in losses for every fraud dollar once fees and merchandise are included. The practical shift is from card-testing defence alone to layered checkout controls, dispute evidence, and policies that distinguish true fraud from first-party misuse.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Sift: “How to Prevent Payment Fraud and Chargebacks in Ecommerce”.
By the numbers:
- Sift’s Q2 2026 Digital Trust Index found that overall chargebacks rose 19% year-over-year.
- Merchants lose $4.61 for every dollar of fraud once fees, fines, and lost merchandise are included.
- The Merchant Risk Council found that 62% of merchants reported an increase in first-party misuse disputes.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when ecommerce teams treat all chargebacks as the same problem?
A: They lose visibility into whether the loss came from stolen payment details, account takeover, or a legitimate customer disputing a valid purchase.
Q: Why do first-party misuse disputes need different controls from stolen-card fraud?
A: Because the buyer is often the real cardholder, checkout fraud signals may not stop the transaction.
Q: How do security and fraud teams know if friction is working?
A: Friction is working when it reduces abuse without creating avoidable abandonment or customer support burden.
Practitioner guidance
- Split true fraud from first-party misuse in your case taxonomy Track stolen-card fraud, account takeover, refund abuse, and friendly-fraud disputes as separate problem classes so controls and reporting do not blur together.
- Use layered signals at checkout Combine device, network, behavioural, and velocity signals into a single decision path rather than depending on one verification rule.
- Apply risk-based friction instead of universal step-up checks Reserve OTP challenges, 3D Secure, or manual review for the highest-risk orders so low-risk customers do not absorb unnecessary abandonment pressure.
Bottom line: Payment fraud and chargebacks now overlap enough that a single checkout-centric fraud model will miss part of the loss picture.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
22/08/2026 12:02 pm
First-party misuse is now a governance problem, not just a fraud symptom. Ecommerce teams that only tune for stolen-card fraud will miss the faster-growing source of chargebacks because the cardholder can be real and the dispute can still be abusive. That shifts responsibility from detection alone to policy clarity, dispute evidence, and customer-service design. The practical conclusion is that fraud operations and dispute operations now need a shared control model.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Authorised push payment (APP) fraud is projected to cause global losses of US$331 billion by 2027.
A question worth separating out:
Q: When should merchants escalate a dispute into representment rather than refunding it?
A: They should escalate when they can tie the transaction to evidence such as device context, delivery confirmation, login history, or prior order behaviour. If that evidence is missing, a fast refund may be cheaper than a weak representment case. The decision should be based on proof quality, not on a blanket policy.
👉 Read our full editorial: Payment fraud and chargebacks are converging in ecommerce