First, the term "friendly fraud" sounds terrible; First-party fraud at least conveys the meaning clearly without the marketing dressup. Second, how does this n

First, the term "friendly fraud" sounds terrible; First-party fraud at least conveys the meaning clearly without the marketing dressup. Second, how does this not weaken the rights of the card-holder? > This change will empower merchants to protect themselves against first party misuse by enabling them to submit additional evidence that a purchase was indeed legitimate and authorized by the cardholder in order to stop the dispute claim. Additional examples that can help identify that a purchase is legitimate include a customer using the same payment credential previously at the merchant, login credentials, proof of use of a product and more. So, for the 80% of the cases (based on Visa's own data citation in the article) where there was a legitimate chargeback, the third-party perpetrator of the fraud just has to use the product which perhaps shows up as "evidence" to the merchant that could be used to deny the chargeback. This somehow reeks of nonsense and is just a weakening of the cardholder's rights and protection of their credit/reputation.