Dispute reason responses
Counterfeit Merchandise Chargebacks: How to Build an Authenticity Response
A counterfeit-merchandise response should test whether credible records establish the authenticity of the particular item sold. General assurances about reputable suppliers are not enough. The response needs a traceable chain from the merchant’s source to the disputed unit, together with an honest assessment of any independent authenticity finding.
Start by understanding the allegation. The customer may cite an authenticator, a brand communication, a serial-number issue, or a specific physical difference. Address that basis directly. Do not treat every quality complaint as a counterfeit claim or assume a supplier invoice conclusively answers an expert finding.
Identify the authenticity allegation and its basis
Read the issuer materials and customer communications for the exact claimed issue. Determine which product, variant, unit, or serial reference is involved. If the allegation relies on a third-party assessment, identify the assessor, assessment date, item scope, and stated method where available.
Visa recognizes counterfeit-merchandise dispute conditions. Visa public rules.
Distinguish authenticity from condition and quality. A genuine item can be damaged or disappointing. A counterfeit allegation concerns whether the item is represented as genuine when it is not. The response should not rely on delivery proof or a working-product demonstration as a substitute for authenticity evidence.
Check whether the merchant’s listing made a specific claim about brand authorization, provenance, or certification. Those statements may create an additional factual question. Do not defend a claim of authorized distribution with a document that establishes only that the merchant bought goods from an intermediary.
Link provenance to the sold item
Collect legitimate supplier invoices, purchase records, distribution documentation, and unit or batch identifiers relevant to the disputed item. Explain each link: supplier to merchant inventory, inventory to the fulfilled order, and order to the returned or assessed item where applicable.
Visa merchant guidance discusses counterfeit allegations. Visa merchant dispute guidance.
A document’s existence is not enough; its scope matters. An invoice for a product family may not identify the particular edition. A certificate for one batch should not be attached as though it covers all stock. If the chain contains a gap, name it and seek a credible record rather than filling it with a confident assertion.
Use serial numbers carefully. A matching number can support a link, but the response needs to explain what the relevant issuer or manufacturer record actually confirms. Do not claim that a number appearing on packaging automatically proves authenticity, or that an online lookup is authoritative without verifying its source.
Build an authenticity-chain worksheet
The following reusable worksheet helps the merchant or qualified provider assess the strength of the provenance response.
| Link | Record to inspect | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Product representation | Purchase-time listing | What authenticity claim was made? |
| Supplier source | Relevant acquisition record | Who supplied the goods and what was supplied? |
| Inventory identity | Batch or unit record | Does the acquisition record cover this stock? |
| Fulfilled unit | Order-linked item record | Which unit reached the customer? |
| Independent assessment | Actual report or communication | What item and method does the finding concern? |
| Conflicting finding | Credible contrary record | Does it address the same unit and allegation? |
In a hypothetical case, the merchant has an invoice for genuine branded stock but cannot link the disputed serial-numbered item to that invoice. The customer provides a brand assessment of the returned unit. The invoice is relevant background, but the missing unit link and independent finding require substantive review.
In another hypothetical case, the apparent mismatch results from an assessment of a different model, and the merchant has traceable unit records and a credible model-specific confirmation. The response can explain that discrepancy with the actual documents. Neither scenario supports promising a win.
Address findings fairly and choose qualified help
Do not dismiss an independent finding with a generic statement that the supplier is trusted. Explain any verified problem with scope, identity, method, or interpretation. If the finding supports the allegation, preserve it and seek the appropriate merchant and provider decision.
Avoid altering certificates, creating retrospective provenance records, or presenting a supplier’s unsupported assurance as an independent expert conclusion. A truthful response can describe the source and its limits. The reviewer needs to know who produced the record and what it actually establishes.
Check the case’s live response route, deadline, and required conditions. Authenticity disputes may require records or expertise the merchant does not possess. If considering a specialist provider, confirm support for the actual processor, network reason, product category, and available evidence before sharing sensitive commercial documents.
Where a permitted response is supported, submit the provenance chain and relevant findings through the authorized channel. Where the records do not support authenticity or no defense applies, use the appropriate resolution route. The useful outcome is a credible item-specific account, not a large collection of unrelated supplier paperwork.
Explore the Provider Hub if you need help preparing or defending a dispute; confirm the provider supports your processor and case type.
Related reading in this collection: