What is the difference between 13.5 and 13.3?

13.3 says the delivered goods or services were defective or materially different from the description; 13.5 says the selling itself was deceptive about terms or nature of the purchase. In practice they overlap, and issuers choose based on how the cardholder frames the complaint. Your defense for 13.5 centers on disclosed terms and consent, while 13.3 centers on product condition and description accuracy.

Can I be held responsible for claims an affiliate made on their landing page?

For dispute purposes, yes. The cardholder was induced into a transaction with you, and the issuer does not distinguish who authored the inducement. Card network and regulator enforcement similarly treat affiliate claims as the merchant's responsibility for traffic the merchant paid for. Affiliate creative pre-approval and enforcement is the only workable control.

How do I prove what my checkout page said months ago?

Archive dated captures of every funnel and checkout version, either through your own versioned deployments or a page-archiving tool that snapshots on each change. A representment with a timestamped capture of the disclosure the customer accepted is dramatically stronger than a current screenshot the issuer cannot tie to the transaction date. Merchants who iterate funnels weekly need this automated, not manual.

Visa · Consumer Disputes

Reason code 13.5: Misrepresentation

The cardholder claims the merchant misrepresented the terms of the sale, the nature of the product or service, or material conditions of the purchase. This differs from 13.3 in that the complaint targets deceptive selling rather than defective delivery: the customer says they were misled into the transaction itself. Trial offers, investment and coaching claims, and hidden conditions are the typical subject matter.

Issuer filing window

typically 120 days from the transaction processing date or the date the cardholder received the merchandise or services

Merchant response window

typically 20-30 days to respond, depending on the acquirer

Why 13.5 chargebacks happen

A trial offer's conversion terms were obscured, and the customer says they were misled about what they were signing up for.
Marketing promised outcomes, earnings, or results that the product could not deliver.
Material conditions like restocking fees, subscription requirements, or usage limits were revealed only after purchase.
An advertorial or affiliate landing page made claims the merchant's own terms contradict.
Upsell flows characterized add-ons in ways that did not match what was actually charged or delivered.

How to fight a 13.5 chargeback

Reconstruct the exact purchase path the customer saw: landing page, offer terms, checkout disclosures, and confirmation, archived as of the transaction date.
Show affirmative acceptance of the disputed terms, such as checkbox consent adjacent to clearly stated conditions.
Provide the delivered product or service against the actual written offer, demonstrating the sale matched its description.
Address the specific misrepresentation alleged rather than defending the offer generally; issuers evaluate the claim as pled.
Include affiliate-page captures when a third-party page made the alleged claims, while recognizing that network rules still hold you responsible for traffic you paid for.
Weigh settlement on cases where your own funnel copy overpromised, because a representment file documenting deceptive claims can be worse than the lost dispute.

How to prevent 13.5 chargebacks

State every material term before payment: full price, rebill schedule, fees, restrictions, and cancellation method.
Substantiate marketing claims, and strip outcome promises your product cannot reliably deliver.
Police affiliate creatives with mandatory pre-approval and test purchases through affiliate links, since their claims become your disputes.
Archive every version of your funnel pages with dates so you can prove what any customer saw.
Align upsell descriptions precisely with what gets charged and shipped.
Have someone outside marketing review new funnels specifically for what a customer could claim they were misled about.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between 13.5 and 13.3?: 13.3 says the delivered goods or services were defective or materially different from the description; 13.5 says the selling itself was deceptive about terms or nature of the purchase. In practice they overlap, and issuers choose based on how the cardholder frames the complaint. Your defense for 13.5 centers on disclosed terms and consent, while 13.3 centers on product condition and description accuracy.
Can I be held responsible for claims an affiliate made on their landing page?: For dispute purposes, yes. The cardholder was induced into a transaction with you, and the issuer does not distinguish who authored the inducement. Card network and regulator enforcement similarly treat affiliate claims as the merchant's responsibility for traffic the merchant paid for. Affiliate creative pre-approval and enforcement is the only workable control.
How do I prove what my checkout page said months ago?: Archive dated captures of every funnel and checkout version, either through your own versioned deployments or a page-archiving tool that snapshots on each change. A representment with a timestamped capture of the disclosure the customer accepted is dramatically stronger than a current screenshot the issuer cannot tie to the transaction date. Merchants who iterate funnels weekly need this automated, not manual.

Related Visa codes