Library · Chargebacks · Guide
3DS shift vs watched ratio
Guide3DS shift vs watched ratioBack to article
Liability shift ≠ automatic ratio exclusion. Filter the claim. Get this agreement’s rule in writing.
| Claim | Reality | Get in writing | Do not |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successful 3DS = out of my CB ratio | Shift is who pays a qualifying fraud CB — not automatic removal from every watch | Does this processor exclude shifted fraud from primary count? | Assume the slide equals the contract |
| Successful 3DS = out of VAMP | Visa’s public VAMP FAQ names CE 3.0 and pre-dispute exclusions — not “all 3DS shifts” | Which TC40 / dispute rows still count after auth success? | Treat liability shift as a VAMP eraser |
| Attempted / failed 3DS still shifted | No. Failed or attempted 3DS is not a liability shift | What this gateway logs as authenticated vs attempted | Count challenges that abandoned as a shift |
| 3DS cleans not-received / NAS | No. Liability shift is fraud-family. Consumer disputes still count | N/A — family is wrong for shift | Turn on 3DS to “fix” consumer codes |
| CE 3.0 win = same as liability shift | Different doors. CE 3.0 can exclude qualified TC40 from VAMP when the extract allows it | Whether this case met CE 3.0 — not only 3DS success | Rename every 3DS auth as CE 3.0 |
| RDR / alert refund already cleared the ratio | Pre-dispute paths are a different exclusion family — still confirm timing of the extract | Does this refund sit outside primary / VAMP here? | Stack 3DS myths on top of RDR myths |
Read the claim. Liability shift and ratio exclusion are different jobs. What 3DS is sits on 3-D Secure.
Pairing procedure: Liability shift is not ratio exclusion. Topic: Chargebacks.
Work with us — We run this job on your accounts. Services