Visa's Compelling Evidence 3.0 lets a merchant block an online fraud claim using your own purchase history — and for disputes processed on or after October 24, 2026, that history can include purchases at other stores. Answer 6 questions and see where your claim stands.
Private by design — everything runs in your browser.
To defeat a fraud dispute under Compelling Evidence 3.0, the merchant (through its payment processor) has to clear a specific bar. This checker walks through the same elements, in plain English:
Your answers describe your history as you know it. The merchant's processor may hold records you have forgotten — an old subscription, a purchase a family member made on your saved card. So treat a "low exposure" verdict as unlikely, not impossible, and a "high exposure" verdict as a reason to file carefully — never as a reason not to file at all. Your federal rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act are separate from Visa's network rules.
Why Visa expanded the rule, who it catches out (shared devices are the big one), and the four things to do before you file — in the companion guide.
It is a Visa rule, in force since April 2023, for fraud disputes on card-absent purchases (dispute condition 10.4 — online and in-app orders). A merchant can make the dispute invalid by supplying two earlier, undisputed purchases on the same card, each between 120 and 365 days old, that match the disputed purchase on at least two data elements — one of which must be the IP address or the device ID/fingerprint. The other match can be the account/login ID or the delivery address.
For disputes processed on or after October 24, 2026, the two earlier purchases no longer have to be at the same store or on the exact same credential. They can be purchases at one or more merchants, made with the same card or an associated credential such as a wallet token. There is still a limit: the merchant's payment processor (acquirer) may only submit transaction data it accepted and processed itself, so the history comes from stores that share that processor — not from your entire card history.
No. File promptly, and file in writing. Visa's rules decide whether your bank can push the charge back to the merchant; they do not change your federal rights. For credit cards, written notice of a billing error is generally due within 60 days of the statement (15 USC 1666), and federal law caps your liability for unauthorized credit-card use at $50 (15 USC 1643). If your claim is denied, ask for the documentation the merchant submitted and answer it point by point.
That is the trap in this rule: it matches a device, an internet connection and an address — not a person. A purchase by your child or partner on the family laptop, over home Wi-Fi, shipped to your house, looks identical to yours. But be honest in the other direction too: a purchase made by someone you gave the card to is generally not "unauthorized," and calling it fraud can backfire. Check who used the card before you file, and remove your card from shared logins and devices you do not control.
No. The merchant's acquirer may only submit transaction data that it accepted and processed. In practice, the earlier purchases must come from merchants that use the same payment processor as the store you are disputing. The merchant also cannot see or use another store's customer records — it works from processor transaction data only.
No. Compelling Evidence 3.0 is a Visa rule tied to Visa dispute condition 10.4. The other networks run their own dispute frameworks and have no equivalent named rule, although prior undisputed purchases can still be offered as supporting evidence in a fraud dispute elsewhere.
