Visa 13.4 Chargeback: Counterfeit Merchandise

Freeze the exact product identity

Save the purchase-time listing, SKU or model, variant, serial number where applicable, order record, and invoice. The packet needs to show exactly which item the customer bought. A current catalog page is weaker when the listing, supplier, or product version may have changed since the sale.

If the merchant sells similar variants, avoid using evidence for a neighboring model. Mismatched photos or invoices can create a credibility problem even when the business generally sources authentic merchandise.

Trace the item back to a legitimate source record

Use supplier invoices, distributor records, purchase orders, authenticity records, serial-number records, or other sourcing documents the merchant normally keeps. Redact unrelated confidential details if permitted, but preserve enough information to connect the sourced item to the SKU or batch sold.

Do not use a generic supplier relationship as proof for a specific unit unless the records can bridge the gap. If the merchant cannot connect inventory received to inventory sold, state the limitation internally before deciding to contest.

Compare the customer's allegation to the item facts

Read the complaint closely. The customer may point to packaging, serial number, labeling, material, model markings, or another characteristic. Build the response around that specific allegation rather than repeating a broad authenticity claim.

If support staff asked for photos or additional details, include that exchange where it clarifies the issue. A customer message can also reveal whether the complaint is actually about condition, quality, or description rather than counterfeit status.

Document return, inspection, and refund events

If the item was returned, preserve the return authorization, carrier record, received date, inspection notes, photos taken during inspection, disposition, and refund action. Keep merchant observations factual; avoid claiming an item was switched or tampered with unless the retained evidence supports that conclusion.

If the merchant refused a return or determined no refund was due, include the purchase-time policy and the transaction-specific reason, but do not let policy language replace the authenticity evidence that the dispute is testing.

Build a side-by-side authenticity file

A strong exhibit can align four columns: customer allegation, purchase-time product fact, sourcing/authenticity record, and any return inspection fact. This format makes it obvious where the records directly answer the complaint and where uncertainty remains.

Avoid padding the packet with brand marketing, generic store policies, or screenshots of unrelated inventory. The reviewer should be able to trace this SKU or unit from offer to source to delivery and, if applicable, back through the return.

Use losses to audit catalog and sourcing controls

A lost 13.4 case may expose weak inventory traceability even if the merchant believes the goods were authentic. Improve SKU-level supplier mapping, serial capture where appropriate, purchase-time page archives, and return inspection records.

Also review listing language. Ambiguous terms such as 'inspired,' 'compatible,' 'replica,' refurbished status, or marketplace seller identity can create disputes that are partly about representation rather than product provenance.

Example: authentic product, mismatched SKU documentation

A merchant believes a pair of sneakers is authentic and has a legitimate supplier invoice, but the invoice covers a different SKU than the pair sold. In a Visa 13.4 case, that supplier relationship is not enough. The evidence needs to connect the exact sold SKU, batch, or serial-controlled item to the sourcing record.

If that bridge does not exist, the merchant should avoid presenting a generic wholesaler invoice as decisive proof. The operational fix is better inventory traceability and purchase-time listing archiving.

Prove product provenance without turning the packet into a brand-authentication essay

Counterfeit disputes require the merchant to identify the exact item. Preserve SKU, model, serial or batch information where available, supplier, purchase order or distributor invoice, receiving record, and the order line sent to the customer. The objective is to connect the disputed item to the merchant's sourcing chain. A generic invoice showing that the merchant buys products from an authorized source may be useful context, but it is stronger when the records can tie that source to the exact model or batch sold.

Then compare the customer's allegation with the merchant's item record. If the customer claims a serial number, packaging feature, label, or model differs, preserve the complaint and any photos they supplied. If the item was returned, document the returned item's identifiers and condition and whether they match what the merchant shipped. Be cautious where substitution, swapped returns, or commingled inventory could complicate the chain. The merchant should not claim certainty that its systems cannot actually establish.

Authenticity and description are related but not identical. An authentic item can still be the wrong model, used instead of new, or materially different from the listing. If the complaint mixes counterfeit and description issues, answer both facts separately. Show provenance for authenticity and purchase-time listing versus delivered item for description. If a return or refund resolved the customer's complaint, reconcile that remedy before defending any remaining amount.

Repeated 13.4 cases should trigger supply-chain review. Segment by supplier, marketplace seller, warehouse, SKU, and batch. Check whether inventory sources are documented consistently, whether returns can re-enter sellable stock without verification, and whether staff can retrieve provenance months later. A merchant that cannot reconstruct sourcing after a dispute may also have a broader catalog-control problem even if the individual product was genuine.

Use returned-item inspection to test whether the authenticity complaint matches the shipped unit

When a customer returns an allegedly counterfeit item, compare serial, batch, SKU, packaging identifiers, and condition with the merchant's outbound record. A returned item that cannot be tied to the shipped unit creates an evidence gap that should be documented rather than ignored. If the business commingles inventory from multiple suppliers, provenance may be harder to establish and should be treated as a sourcing-control issue.

Keep manufacturer or distributor statements transaction-specific where possible. A general letter saying the supplier sells genuine goods is weaker than an invoice or batch record tied to the item. The merchant should build provenance into receiving and inventory systems so authenticity evidence exists before a dispute, not as a special investigation months later.

Counterfeit allegations benefit from separating authenticity evidence from condition or expectation disputes. Supplier invoices, authorized-distributor records, serial or lot information, product photographs, and manufacturer verification can support sourcing, but they do not automatically answer a complaint about quality, packaging, or a different model. If the item was returned, compare the serial, SKU, packaging, and condition of the returned unit with the shipment record before assuming it is the same item. If no return occurred, state that limitation. This prevents a merchant from presenting a legitimate supply-chain record as proof of every fact in the case. It also helps identify return substitution or inventory-control problems that may otherwise be mislabeled as counterfeit disputes.