> ...the bank still accepts the cardholders claim that they do not recognize and did not authorize the charge they are trying to chargeback and won't budge unle

> ...the bank still accepts the cardholders claim that they do not recognize and did not authorize the charge they are trying to chargeback and won't budge unless we can FAX the signed receipt. This is not true. Of course you won't have a signature for an online purchase, but this isn't novel; online purchasing has been around for a while. Merchants can and do fight chargebacks successfully, or else most merchants wouldn't be in a position to accept online payments at all for fear of chargebacks. (Not to mention, we'd never hear a consumer complain about unresolved disputes if the bank just charged them all back routinely!) Banks don't only accept faxed copies of signed receipts, because they usually don't exist online. Banks want evidence. If a merchant isn't keeping good records, that's on the merchant. In this case, it sounds like the contractor should have sufficient evidence, or else how did they come up with figures to enter manually for hours worked? Evidence that work was performed, combined with Upwork's billing policies and the disclosure about the card usage by the contractor's client should have been sufficient to address these chargebacks. Either not all the evidence was submitted (whether by the contractor or Upwork), or story is incomplete.