Skip to article
ecomservices.io
Chargebacks · How to run this
MatchingNot on this page yetPricingCalculatorIntakeCalculatorReason codesCalculatorRepresentmentCalculatorThresholdsCalculatorAllocationCalculatorOptimisationCalculatorPrevention stackCalculatorProviders

Library · Chargebacks · How to run this

CE 3.0 on the first sale vs a later rebill

How to run thisChargebacks4 steps
GuideCE 3.0 CIT vs MIT — claim map · Calculator lives in the articleOpen

Compelling Evidence 3.0 does not get a softer rule because the sale was a rebill. Visa 10.4 still wants at least two prior undisputed sales with matching IP and email or ship-to. What changes is which tickets can sit in that prior set. The prior checklist is the count-and-match job. This page is first sale (CIT) vs later bill (MIT).

Pair: CE 3.0 CIT vs MIT — claim map on Chargebacks. The MIT chain itself: rebill original ID.

First sale disputed (CIT)

You need two other prior sales with this cardholder that match. The disputed CIT is not a prior. A brand-new buyer with one checkout has no CE 3.0 path — refund or write off. Do not invent a second sale.

Later bill disputed (MIT)

The original shopper-present CIT can be one prior if it was undisputed and not fraud. You still need a second prior (another rebill or another sale) that matches IP and email or ship-to. One CIT alone is not two. The disputed MIT is not a prior.

Priors still need the match fields. A stored token without matching IP/email/ship-to does not become CE 3.0.

What not to do

Do not treat “it’s a subscription” as automatic CE 3.0. Do not count the disputed ticket. Do not skip original-sale ID and hope priors fix a broken MIT chain. Do not use this map for Mastercard or consumer reason codes.

Related: Chargebacks, CE 3.0 priors, rebill original ID, Subscriptions.

Procedure

  1. Confirm Visa 10.4.
  2. If CIT disputed: need two other priors.
  3. If MIT disputed: undisputed CIT may be one prior — still need a second.
  4. Tick match fields on the CE 3.0 checklist.

Failure modes

  • Treating subscription as automatic CE 3.0.
  • Counting the disputed ticket as a prior.
  • Using CIT as both priors for a MIT dispute.
  • Skipping match fields because a token exists.

Worked example

None on this page yet. When one lands it will be a real case: what broke, the number, and what changed. Not a composite.

Glossary

CIT / MIT for CE 3.0
First shopper-present sale vs later rebill. Same two-prior rule. Undisputed CIT can be one prior when a later MIT is disputed.

Work with us — We run this job on your accounts. Services

FAQ

Does CE 3.0 work the same on a subscription rebill?
Same Visa 10.4 rule — at least two prior undisputed matching sales. The original CIT can count as one prior for a later MIT dispute if it was not fraud-disputed.
Can the disputed MIT count as one of the two priors?
No. Priors are other sales. The disputed ticket is the one under fight.
Is this the same as the CE 3.0 checklist?
No. [CE 3.0 priors](/manuals/ce3-evidence) ticks count and match fields. This page is CIT vs MIT shape.