3D Secure Liability Shift: What UK Shopify Stores Get

A customer buys a £420 watch from your Shopify store. The bank pops up a code, they type it in, the payment goes through. Six weeks later the same bank takes £420 and a £10 fee back, saying the watch was never received. You think: "But they passed 3D Secure. Surely that protects me?" It does not, and that gap between what the 3D Secure liability shift covers and what store owners assume it covers is one of the most expensive misunderstandings in UK ecommerce.

The 3D Secure liability shift moves responsibility for certain fraud disputes from you to the card issuer when the customer fully passes authentication at checkout. It covers fraud claims such as Visa 10.4 and Mastercard 4837. It does not cover "item not received", "not as described", duplicate or credit-not-processed disputes, so you still need your own evidence for those.

This guide is for you if:

You sell on Shopify in the UK and assume 3D Secure protects you from every kind of chargeback.
You have lost a dispute on an order that passed authentication and want to know why.
You want a simple way to sort incoming disputes into "the liability shift covers this" and "I need my own evidence".

Last updated: 19 October 2026. Written by the ChargeFix team. Reviewed against sources on 19 October 2026. General information, not legal advice.

The 30-second answer (TL;DR)

The 3D Secure liability shift makes the card issuer liable for fraud-coded disputes on orders where the customer fully authenticated. For Visa that is code 10.4, for Mastercard 4837.

It does not cover Visa 13.1 (not received), 13.3 (not as described), 13.2 (cancelled recurring), 13.6 (credit not processed) or 12.6 (duplicate). Those need your evidence.

Full authentication means a Visa ECI of 05 or a Mastercard ECI of 02 with a valid cryptogram. Attempted authentication (ECI 06 or 01) is contested, so treat it as unprotected until your acquirer confirms in writing.

If the payment was exempted, or was Data Only, the fraud liability shift does not apply.

In the UK, strong customer authentication has applied since 14 March 2022, and Shopify Payments and Stripe run 3D Secure automatically.

Do this today (10 minutes):

Open your last five disputes and write the reason next to each.

Mark each one "fraud" or "not fraud".

For the fraud ones, find out whether the order was fully authenticated. For the rest, check you have delivery or policy evidence saved.

Sorting disputes by reason takes ten minutes and shows you where the liability shift helps and where it does not.

From dispute to decision

Stage	What happens	Your move
Checkout	The customer is asked to authenticate with their bank	Nothing for you to do, the issuer controls the flow
Payment	The result is recorded with an ECI value	Know what your ECI values mean
Dispute	The bank raises a reason code	Read the code before anything else
Triage	Is it a fraud code with full authentication?	If yes, the liability shift may apply. If no, build your evidence
Response	You respond by the due date	Include the authentication result with fraud claims

What is the 3D Secure liability shift, in plain English?

The 3D Secure liability shift is a rule that says: if the customer proved who they were through their bank, and a fraud dispute follows, the bank carries the loss, not you. 3D Secure is the extra step at checkout where a customer approves a payment with a code, an app prompt or a fingerprint.

Stripe's UK support page explains the background. Strong customer authentication became a legal requirement in the UK on 14 March 2022. It means online payments need at least two of three elements: something the customer knows, something they have and something they are. Stripe enables 3D Secure for issued cards, and the customer typically sees a page from their own bank where they enter a code sent to their phone or email. Stripe rejects purchases that are not properly authenticated, unless an exemption applies.

The liability shift is the payoff for merchants. You asked the bank to check the customer, the bank checked, and so the bank owns the fraud risk. It is not a guarantee about every kind of dispute, and the next sections show the limits.

Three words you will see:

Issuer: the customer's bank. It decides how to authenticate.
Acquirer: the bank or processor that takes payments for you. For Shopify Payments that is Shopify's arrangement.
ECI: a two-digit result code recording how far authentication got.

One honest caution. Card network rules change on their own schedule, and one trade source I used says to confirm the current scope with your acquirer. Where I could not verify a detail, I say so.

Who is liable under the 3D Secure liability shift? The Stripe table, explained

Stripe publishes a table of who is liable in each situation. The table is short enough to remember, and it answers most "who pays?" questions about fraud disputes.

Situation	Who is liable (fraud dispute)
3D Secure is used, the issuer applies it and the customer passes	The issuer
3D Secure is used, but the issuer or cardholder is not 3DS-enabled, so the customer is not authenticated	The issuer
The merchant is not 3DS-enabled and cannot apply it, and the customer is not authenticated	The merchant or acquirer
An exemption is used, the issuer accepts it, and the customer is not authenticated	The merchant or acquirer
An exemption is used, the issuer overrules it, applies 3D Secure and the customer passes	The issuer
The customer fails 3D Secure, with or without an exemption request	The transaction fails, so there is no liability

Read rows four and six together, because they show the trade-off. An exempted payment removes friction for the customer, which can help conversion, but it also removes the liability shift. A customer who fails authentication simply does not complete the payment, so you never take the risk.

For a UK store on Shopify Payments, most of this happens without you touching a setting. The flow is decided by the issuer, not by you, and that is why the liability shift is something you understand and plan around, not something you switch on.

Which disputes does the 3D Secure liability shift cover?

It covers fraud-coded disputes on authenticated transactions, and nothing else. In practice that means Visa 10.4 (other fraud, card absent) and Mastercard 4837 (no cardholder authorisation), which also absorbed the retired Mastercard 4863 code.

Dispute	Visa	Mastercard	Does the liability shift cover it?
Fraud, card absent	10.4	4837	Yes, if fully authenticated
Merchandise or services not received	13.1	4853	No
Not as described or defective	13.3	4853	No
Cancelled recurring transaction	13.2	4853	No
Credit not processed	13.6	4853	No
Duplicate or processing error	12.6	4834	No

That table is the heart of this guide. Put it on your wall. The customer in our opening example raised a "not received" claim, Visa 13.1. It does not matter that they passed 3D Secure, because authentication proves who paid, not that the parcel arrived. As one trade source puts it, payment authentication is not a substitute for fulfilment evidence.

So there are two kinds of disputes in your inbox:

"I did not make this payment." The shift may protect you.
"I paid, but something went wrong." The shift does not, and you need delivery, policy or communication evidence.

If you want to build that evidence, ChargeFix has separate guides on proof of delivery and on credit not processed disputes, linked below.

What do the ECI values mean for the 3D Secure liability shift?

The ECI is the code that records how far authentication got on a given payment. Full authentication gives a liability shift. Anything less is a question mark.

Result	Visa ECI	Mastercard ECI	Liability shift for fraud?
Fully authenticated, valid cryptogram	05	02	Yes
Attempted authentication (stand-in response)	06	01	Contested, treat as unprotected
Data Only (data sent, no authentication requested)	none	none	No
Exempted payment	n/a	n/a	No fraud shift

The attempted rows are where people get hurt. A trade article lays out the disagreement: one payments processor's documentation treats Visa ECI 06 as shifting liability, with carve-outs for a missing cryptogram, certain prepaid cards, restricted merchant categories and merchants in fraud monitoring programmes, while a separate analysis dated 24 September 2025 argues that only ECI 05 and 02 shift liability. The sensible reading is the article's own advice: treat attempted results as unprotected until your acquirer confirms otherwise in writing.

Data Only is easy to misread. It sends authentication data to the issuer without asking the customer to authenticate, so no liability shifts. If your payment setup uses it, it may help approval rates but it does not buy you protection.

What does an exemption do to the liability shift?

If the issuer lets a payment skip strong customer authentication, the fraud liability shift does not apply. Merchants and acquirers may ask for low-risk payments to be exempted, which can mean a smoother checkout, but the price is that fraud liability stays with you.

Stripe's page confirms exempt payments exist but does not list the types, linking to external guidance instead. So I cannot tell you which of your payments qualify, and I would not guess. What you can do is know that "no challenge at checkout" is not the same as "full authentication". A customer who sailed through without a prompt may have been approved frictionlessly after a silent check, which still counts as authentication, or may have been exempted, which does not.

What the customer saw	What may have happened	Liability for fraud
A code, app prompt or fingerprint request	Challenge flow, customer authenticated	Issuer, if ECI 05 or 02
Nothing at all	Frictionless approval (authenticated) or an exemption	Issuer if authenticated, you if exempt
A failed authentication, then a retry	A new attempt, judged on its own result	Depends on the final result

The customer's experience cannot tell you which of these happened. Only the recorded result can.

Frictionless or challenge: who controls whether the liability shift is earned?

The issuer decides. Its access control server either approves silently, which is the frictionless flow, or issues a challenge such as a one-time code, an app approval or a biometric prompt. Merchants do not control the flow, and Stripe states that the issuer determines it.

This changes how you should think about "adding 3D Secure". In the UK and EEA, strong customer authentication is required, and Shopify Payments and Stripe run 3D Secure automatically. So the question for a UK store is rarely "should I turn it on?" and more often "what does it mean for the disputes I get?".

On a direct Stripe integration there is a setting that can force 3D Secure, which Stripe describes as intended for advanced users and which overrides Radar's dynamic rules. I could not verify whether Shopify Payments exposes any equivalent control to UK merchants, so I will not claim one exists.

How does Visa Compelling Evidence 3.0 fit alongside the liability shift?

They are two different routes to the same destination, a won fraud dispute. The liability shift is automatic protection for authenticated payments. Compelling Evidence 3.0 (CE 3.0) is a Visa process where you show a customer's history to defend a 10.4 fraud dispute when the liability shift does not apply.

From the notes I used: CE 3.0 applies to Visa reason 10.4. It needs at least two prior undisputed transactions from the same customer, within a window of 120 to 364 days before the dispute (Stripe's wording) or 120 to 365 days (Visa's), with matching elements such as an IP address or device ID plus a shipping address or account ID. Stripe autofills these where it can. Mastercard has a comparable programme, but I could not find its criteria. A separate trade source adds that since 17 October 2025, Visa also automatically qualifies transactions authenticated through Visa Secure for CE 3.0.

Route	Applies to	What you need	Who does the work
Liability shift	Fraud disputes on fully authenticated payments	The payment to have been authenticated	Mostly automatic
Compelling Evidence 3.0	Visa 10.4 fraud disputes	Two or more clean prior transactions with matching data	You or your processor
Your own evidence	Everything else	Delivery proof, policy, emails	You

CE 3.0 does not fit "item not received" claims. A trade guide I read is blunt about this: for Visa 13.1 you need fulfilment and delivery proof, and CE 3.0 is for 10.4. So do not hunt through your customer's order history for a not-received dispute. Go and find the tracking.

What happens to the liability shift if you ignore an inquiry on an authenticated order?

You can lose the protection. A trade article warns that inquiries on authenticated charges still require a response, and that ignoring one can lead to a "no-reply" chargeback that could invalidate the liability shift. Stripe separately says an unanswered inquiry can escalate.

This is a quiet trap. A store owner sees an inquiry on an order that passed 3D Secure, thinks "that's covered", and does nothing. The inquiry escalates, the dispute closes against them for non-response, and the liability shift they were relying on is gone. Shopify's help centre says an inquiry takes no money but can escalate to a chargeback. So answer every inquiry, even the ones you believe are protected.

Notice	Your move	Why
Inquiry on an authenticated order	Reply with the authentication result and order details	Avoids a no-reply chargeback
Chargeback with a fraud code on an authenticated order	Respond, and cite the authentication	The shift may apply but is not automatic
Chargeback with a non-fraud code	Build your own evidence	The shift does not cover it

How do you sort disputes by whether the 3D Secure liability shift covers them?

Look at the reason code first and the authentication result second. If the code is a fraud code and the payment was fully authenticated, the liability shift may apply. For everything else, you are building your own case.

Here is a made-up month with six disputes to show the sort. The numbers are illustrative.

Order	Amount	Reason	Authenticated?	Shift applies?	What you do
#4012	£420	Visa 13.1 not received	Yes, ECI 05	No	Delivery proof
#4031	£85	Visa 10.4 fraud	Yes, ECI 05	Likely	Respond and cite authentication
#4044	£150	Visa 10.4 fraud	Exempted	No	Evidence, maybe CE 3.0
#4050	£60	MC 4853 not as described	Yes, ECI 02	No	Listing, photos, emails
#4063	£220	Visa 10.4 fraud	Attempted, ECI 06	Uncertain	Treat as unprotected
#4071	£35	Visa 13.6 credit not processed	Yes	No	Policy and refund records

Only one of the six is cleanly covered, and the "authenticated" column is mostly irrelevant. That is the pattern. In most stores, the majority of disputes are non-fraud claims, so the liability shift is a helpful backstop, not a shield.

If you check your own last ten disputes, I would expect a similar picture. Keep the sort in your dispute log, with two extra columns: reason code and authentication result.

What does the 3D Secure liability shift mean for the fight-or-accept decision?

It makes a covered fraud dispute worth responding to and a non-covered one worth pricing carefully. A covered dispute has a strong argument already built into the payment. A non-covered one depends entirely on your evidence.

Take the £420 watch again, with the £10 Shopify Payments fee in the UK, returned if you win. Suppose you have delivery proof for a not-received claim.

Option	If you win	If you lose
Respond with delivery proof	£420 and the fee back	£430 gone, plus the goods
Accept	£430 gone, plus the goods	£430 gone, plus the goods

Response costs you about half an hour. If your records are good, that half hour has a high expected return on a £420 order. If you have no delivery proof, the fight is weak whatever the authentication says. A trade source frames the decision as expected net benefit: your win probability times the amount you can recover, minus the extra cost of responding. The break-even win probability is the extra cost divided by the amount you can recover. At £10 of time and £10 of fee risk against £420, you need only about a 5 percent chance to break even, so almost any real evidence justifies responding on a £420 order. Winning does not remove the dispute from your chargeback rate.

What does a fraud dispute on an authenticated order look like, day by day?

Here is a plan for a Visa 10.4 notice on an order that passed 3D Secure. It lands on Wednesday 4 November 2026 with a due date of Wednesday 18 November 2026. Your own dates will be on the notice.

Date	Task	Output
Wed 4 Nov	Read the reason code and due date. Check your balance.	Dispute logged
Thu 5 Nov	Pull the payment record and find the authentication result (ECI and cryptogram status).	Authentication exhibit
Fri 6 Nov	Pull billing details, IP address and country, order history for the customer.	Context exhibits
Mon 9 Nov	Decide: respond with authentication, or add CE 3.0 data.	Route chosen
Tue 10 Nov	Draft the cover note.	Draft v1
Wed 11 Nov	Read it cold. Check every claim against a document.	File v2
Thu 12 Nov	Submit, six days early. Save the confirmation.	Submitted
After	Keep the file until the dispute closes.	Record kept

Shopify's help centre lists what to send for fraudulent and unrecognised disputes: the fulfilment date and time, billing information, the IP address and country, and shipping and tracking. The authentication result belongs at the top of that list when you have it. Shopify Payments sends whatever is on file on the due date, so finish early.

I could not verify exactly where Shopify's admin displays the ECI or cryptogram status for a UK order, so check the payment details on the order and ask Shopify or Stripe support if it is not visible. Do not state an authentication result in a response unless you have seen it.

Three disputes, three outcomes: how the 3D Secure liability shift plays out

Here are three made-up disputes on the same day, all on orders that passed 3D Secure. The 3D Secure liability shift helps in one of them.

Dispute one: the £420 watch, "not received" (Visa 13.1). The customer authenticated with a code. The bank still raised a not-received claim. The 3D Secure liability shift does not apply, because the code is not a fraud code. Your tracking shows delivery to the address on the order with a photo at the door, so you respond with proof of delivery, the promised date and the customer's earlier email asking about warranty. You have a good chance. Authentication is a minor supporting fact here, not the main event.

Dispute two: the £85 headphones, "fraud" (Visa 10.4). The customer says they never made the purchase. The payment shows full authentication, ECI 05 with a valid cryptogram. The 3D Secure liability shift is likely to apply, so you respond with the authentication result, the billing match, the IP address and the delivery record. Do not skip the response because you believe you are covered. Inquiries and notices still need an answer.

Dispute three: the £220 coat, "fraud" (a Visa fraud code). The payment shows ECI 06, an attempted authentication. The 3D Secure liability shift is uncertain. A trade article says to treat attempted results as unprotected until your acquirer confirms in writing. So you build the full fraud defence: delivery to the billing address, IP and device data, and Compelling Evidence 3.0 if the customer has two clean prior orders in the right window. You also email your acquirer to ask whether attempted authentication shifts liability for your account, and file the answer.

	Dispute one	Dispute two	Dispute three
Order	£420 watch	£85 headphones	£220 coat
Reason	13.1 not received	10.4 fraud	10.4 fraud
Authentication	ECI 05	ECI 05	ECI 06
Liability shift	No	Likely	Uncertain
Your main evidence	Delivery proof	Authentication result plus delivery	Full fraud defence plus CE 3.0

The lesson is the same each time. The liability shift is a helpful backstop for one kind of dispute. Your evidence still does the heavy lifting.

How do you measure how much the liability shift really helps your store?

Tally your disputes for a quarter by reason code and authentication result. The result tells you whether to spend your effort on authentication questions or on delivery and policy evidence. Most stores find the second is bigger.

DISPUTE TALLY (one row per dispute)

Order # | Amount £ | Reason code | Fraud or not | ECI / auth result |
Shift applies (yes / no / unsure) | Won or lost | Evidence used

At the end of the quarter, add up:

How many disputes were fraud codes, and how many were not.
Of the fraud ones, how many were fully authenticated.
How many you won, and how many you lost, in each group.

If more than half your disputes are non-fraud, put your time into proof of delivery, listing accuracy and a clear returns policy. If most are fraud and many are unauthenticated or exempted, the useful questions are about your authentication setup and your acquirer. I cannot give you a benchmark for either split, because I could not find a published one I could verify, so use your own data.

A simple rule keeps it honest. Never rely on the 3D Secure liability shift as your only plan for a dispute. Treat it as a bonus when it applies and prepare your own evidence every time.

What should the cover note say when the liability shift applies?

Say what happened, name the authentication result and attach the proof. Keep it short and factual, because a reviewer is deciding quickly.

Re: Order #[number], £[amount], reason: fraudulent (Visa 10.4)

Summary: This payment was authenticated with 3D Secure at checkout on
[date] at [time]. The result is attached as Exhibit 1 (ECI [05 / 02],
cryptogram valid). The cardholder's bank approved the authentication.

Exhibit 1: Payment record showing the 3D Secure result.
Exhibit 2: Billing details matching the card, and the shipping address.
Exhibit 3: IP address and country at checkout ([country]).
Exhibit 4: Delivery record: dispatched [date], delivered [date] to
[address line].
Exhibit 5: Order history for this customer, if relevant.

What this shows: the cardholder's bank authenticated the payment, the
goods were delivered to the address on the order, and the order details
are consistent.

What this does not show: [for example, who opened the door].

Notice the last line. Honesty about limits is more persuasive than a claim you cannot support. Never state an ECI value you have not seen.

How do you check whether the 3D Secure liability shift applies to an order?

Look at the payment details for the order, then ask your processor if the result is not visible. The ECI and the cryptogram status are what matter, and they tell you whether the order was fully authenticated, attempted, exempted or Data Only.

Where to look	What you want
The order's payment details in Shopify	Any 3D Secure result shown
Your processor dashboard (if you use Stripe directly)	The 3D Secure outcome on the payment
Your acquirer or Shopify Payments support	Written confirmation of the ECI and whether attempts shift liability

What I could not verify is how much of this Shopify exposes to merchants by default in the UK. If the data is not visible, ask support for it in writing, and keep their answer with your dispute file. A written answer on attempted authentication is exactly the confirmation the trade article advises getting.

What should you do when the 3D Secure liability shift does not apply?

Build your evidence for the real reason. Most of your disputes will fall here, so this is where a routine pays off. The reason code tells you what to prove.

Reason	Evidence to build	Where to start
Not received (13.1, 4853)	Proof of delivery, tracking, promised date	Carrier history and screenshots
Not as described (13.3, 4853)	Listing, photos, customer messages	Product page as shown on the order date
Credit not processed (13.6, 4853)	Policy, proof the customer was told, emails	Dated policy screenshot
Duplicate (12.6, 4834)	Why two charges exist, separate receipts	Order records
Cancelled recurring (13.2, 4853)	Terms, cancellation records, activity log	Subscription records

For each, the Shopify help centre lists the evidence it expects, and it ranks evidence in tiers: direct evidence first, then customer acknowledgment, policy documents and context. Label every piece. The authentication result is context. It never replaces direct evidence on a non-fraud claim.

What is different for UK merchants?

General information, not legal advice.

Authentication rules

Strong customer authentication has applied in the UK since 14 March 2022. Shopify Payments and Stripe run 3D Secure automatically in the UK and EEA, and the issuer decides whether the flow is frictionless or a challenge.

Fees and process

On Shopify Payments in the UK the chargeback fee is £10, returned if you win. The response window is usually 7 to 21 days and the card company's review can take up to 75 days after you submit. Stripe's direct fees are £20 when a dispute is received and £20 more if you counter, for disputes since 17 June 2025.

Network rules

One article I used describes a US Visa monitoring programme that removes the liability shift for merchants above certain fraud thresholds. It is a US programme, so I have not applied it to the UK, and I could not verify any UK equivalent.

What I could not verify: which exempt payment types apply to you, how Shopify displays ECI values to UK merchants, whether attempted authentication shifts liability in the UK today, Mastercard's equivalent of CE 3.0 criteria, and whether Shopify Payments lets UK merchants force authentication. Ask your acquirer in writing for the first and third.

What are the common mistakes with the 3D Secure liability shift?

Nearly all of them come from assuming too much.

Believing the liability shift covers every dispute type, when it covers fraud codes only.
Treating a frictionless checkout as proof of full authentication.
Assuming an attempted result (ECI 06 or 01) shifts liability without written confirmation.
Forgetting that an exempted payment loses the fraud liability shift.
Ignoring an inquiry on an authenticated order and risking a no-reply chargeback.
Using CE 3.0 logic for a not-received claim.
Quoting an ECI value in a response without having seen it.
Skipping delivery evidence because "the payment was authenticated".
Counting a won dispute as if it never happened, when it still counts toward the chargeback rate.
Not checking with the acquirer when network rules change.

If you fix only one, fix the first. A store that knows the liability shift stops at fraud codes will save its delivery evidence, and that alone prevents most of the painful losses.

Frequently asked questions

What is the 3D Secure liability shift?

It is a rule that moves responsibility for certain fraud disputes to the card issuer when the customer fully authenticates at checkout. It covers fraud codes such as Visa 10.4 and Mastercard 4837. It does not cover not-received, not-as-described, duplicate or credit-not-processed disputes.

Does 3D Secure protect me from item-not-received chargebacks?

No. Not-received disputes, Visa 13.1 and Mastercard 4853, sit outside the liability shift. Authentication proves who paid, not that the parcel arrived, so you still need delivery evidence such as tracking history, an address match and any signature or photo.

What does ECI 05 or 02 mean?

They are the codes for full authentication: ECI 05 on Visa and ECI 02 on Mastercard, with a valid cryptogram. These are the results that give the fraud liability shift. Attempted results, ECI 06 on Visa and 01 on Mastercard, are contested, so treat them as unprotected.

Do I get the liability shift if an exemption was used?

No. If the issuer grants a strong customer authentication exemption, the fraud liability shift does not apply, and Stripe's table puts liability on the merchant or acquirer where an exemption is accepted and the customer is not authenticated. Exempt payments can smooth checkout but remove protection.

Is a payment without a code prompt still authenticated?

Possibly. The issuer can approve a payment silently after its own checks, which is a frictionless flow and counts as authentication. It could also have been an exemption, which does not. The customer's experience cannot tell you which, only the recorded result can.

Can I force 3D Secure on every payment?

On a direct Stripe integration there is a setting for advanced users that Stripe describes as overriding Radar's dynamic rules. I could not verify whether Shopify Payments gives UK merchants a similar control. In the UK, authentication is already required and runs automatically.

What happens if I ignore an inquiry on an authenticated order?

It can escalate to a no-reply chargeback, which a trade article says could invalidate the liability shift. Shopify says an inquiry takes no money but may escalate, and Stripe says an unanswered inquiry can escalate too. Always respond, even when you think the order is protected.

Does Compelling Evidence 3.0 replace the liability shift?

No, they are separate. The shift is automatic protection on authenticated payments. CE 3.0 is a Visa route for defending 10.4 fraud disputes using prior undisputed transactions with matching data such as IP or device ID. CE 3.0 does not fit not-received claims.

Does winning a dispute under the liability shift affect my chargeback rate?

Shopify says winning does not remove a dispute from your chargeback rate, which counts disputes filed rather than outcomes. A protected dispute may still count as a filed dispute, so prevention and fast refunds still matter even when the liability shift helps.

Should I check with my acquirer about the liability shift?

Yes. Network rules change on their own schedule, and a trade article advises confirming the current scope with your acquirer, especially for attempted authentication. Ask in writing, and keep the answer with your dispute file so you can point to it when a similar case arrives later.

Start free trial with ChargeFix

ChargeFix gathers the real order, payment-check and delivery records for a Shopify dispute and drafts the response, using only real data and never inventing facts. In Manual mode you review and send each filing yourself, and Auto mode files the cases your rules allow, so whether the 3D Secure liability shift covers your dispute or not, the right evidence goes out well before the due date. Start free trial

3D Secure liability shift: which chargebacks it covers and which it does not