Fraud used to be a fraud problem. Chargebacks used to be a chargeback problem.

Visa no longer sees them that way.

Under the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program (VAMP), fraud and disputes are measured together, giving merchants one risk metric to watch. And as of April 1, 2026, the threshold got tighter.

For merchants in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Asia Pacific, the excessive merchant VAMP ratio dropped from 2.2% to 1.5%. That may look like a small change on paper. At scale, it leaves considerably less room for fraud and disputes before a merchant enters excessive territory. 

That makes VAMP compliance more than something for a payments or risk team to worry about after receiving a warning.

Merchants need to understand what is driving their ratio before it becomes a problem.

What is VAMP?

VAMP stands for Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program. Visa introduced the updated program to consolidate several existing fraud and dispute monitoring programs into a single framework.

Instead of evaluating fraud and disputes separately, Visa uses a combined, count-based VAMP ratio for card-not-present transactions:

VAMP ratio = (fraud reports + disputes) ÷ settled transactions

More specifically, Visa calculates the ratio using the count of TC40 fraud reports plus TC15 disputes divided by the count of settled TC05 transactions. 

The important part for merchants is simple: fraud and disputes now contribute to the same measurement.

A business could have what looks like a manageable fraud rate and still have a VAMP problem because of elevated disputes. The reverse is also true.

That changes how merchants should think about VAMP monitoring. Looking at chargebacks, fraud, customer service issues, and transaction volume in isolation can hide the bigger picture.

What changed in 2026?

When the updated program took effect in 2025, the excessive merchant threshold was 2.2% across the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

On April 1, 2026, Visa lowered that threshold to 1.5%.

For merchants in these regions, the excessive threshold generally applies when both conditions are met:

• The VAMP ratio is 1.5% or higher.

• The monthly count of fraud reports and disputes is at least 1,500.

Visa also monitors enumeration separately. Enumeration is essentially card testing at scale, where attackers repeatedly submit payment credentials to determine whether card information is valid.

Visa's excessive enumeration threshold is a 20% enumeration ratio and at least 300,000 enumerated authorization transactions per month. 

The 1.5% threshold shouldn't become the number you start paying attention to once you hit it.

It should be the number you work backward from.

Why VAMP compliance is not just about stopping fraud

One of the biggest mistakes merchants can make is treating VAMP as another fraud threshold.

It isn't.

Because the VAMP ratio combines fraud reports and disputes, activity elsewhere in the customer journey can affect your performance.

A confusing billing descriptor can create disputes. So can an unclear cancellation policy. Poor customer support, fulfillment problems, subscription confusion, duplicate transactions, and customers who don't recognize a purchase can all eventually show up as payment problems.

Visa specifically recommends clear return, refund, and cancellation policies as part of dispute prevention. It also advises merchants to process transactions promptly and avoid issues such as duplicate transaction processing. 

This means VAMP compliance sits at the intersection of several parts of the business:

• Payments

• Fraud

• Customer experience

• Operations

• And, in some cases, marketing

If a promotional offer says one thing but the billing experience feels like another, that gap can eventually become a dispute.

The warning signs to watch

You don't need to be at 1.5% to have a VAMP problem developing.

The more useful question is whether the inputs behind your ratio are moving in the wrong direction.

Watch for sustained increases in disputes or fraud reports rather than waiting for one metric to cross a threshold.

A sudden increase in declined authorization attempts can also warrant investigation. It may indicate card testing or another enumeration attack, particularly when many attempts happen quickly or share similar characteristics.

Other warning signs can come from outside the payments dashboard: more refund requests, cancellation complaints, customers saying they don't recognize a charge, repeated support tickets about billing, or disputes clustering around a specific product, campaign, geography, or subscription flow.

The goal of VAMP monitoring should be to connect those signals early.

What merchants can do now

The first step is knowing your current VAMP ratio and what is contributing to it.

Don't wait for your processor or acquirer to tell you there is a problem.

Monitor fraud and disputes together

If your internal reporting still separates fraud and chargebacks completely, build a combined view.

A connected payments stack brings transaction, fraud, and dispute data into the same environment, giving teams more context when investigating payment risk.

Track the same basic components Visa is evaluating: settled Visa card-not-present transactions, TC40 fraud reports, and TC15 disputes.

Then monitor the trend.

A ratio that is below the excessive threshold but consistently rising deserves attention.

Break down where the problem is coming from

A company-wide VAMP ratio tells you that something is happening. It doesn't necessarily tell you why.

Look at fraud and disputes by product, geography, transaction size, customer cohort, payment method, acquisition channel, and time period.

For example, if a merchant suddenly sees an increase in suspicious payment attempts from a specific market, applying additional controls to that traffic may be more effective than adding friction to every transaction.

This is where your payments infrastructure matters. Frame Sonar evaluates each transaction against risk signals like velocity, location, address mismatches, and unusual card patterns, so suspicious payments can be flagged or held while trusted customers keep a low-friction checkout.

Look for enumeration before it becomes fraud

Card testing can happen quickly.

Visa estimates enumeration attacks contribute approximately $1.1 billion in annual fraud losses. 

Merchants should watch for abnormal authorization velocity, repeated attempts using slightly different card details, unusual approval-to-decline patterns, and sudden bursts of low-value transactions.

Velocity rules and transaction-level controls can help identify these patterns before successful tests turn into larger fraudulent transactions.

Reduce avoidable disputes

Not every dispute starts with a stolen card.

Some start with a customer who doesn't recognize the merchant name on a statement. Others start with confusing cancellation terms, unclear refund policies, a subscription the customer forgot about, or a support request that went unanswered.

Reducing those disputes is often less about sophisticated fraud technology and more about fixing the customer experience.

Review billing descriptors, refund and cancellation flows, receipts, subscription reminders, fulfillment communication, and support response times.

Visa also excludes certain disputes resolved through qualifying pre-dispute solutions from its VAMP calculation, depending on timing, and provides tools designed to resolve eligible issues before they become formal disputes. 

Add friction selectively

The instinct when fraud rises is often to tighten everything.

More verification. More declines. More manual reviews.

That can stop fraud. It can also stop legitimate customers.

Visa notes that false declines carry their own cost, and more than 40% of merchants globally rate optimizing authorization rates as "extremely important." 

The better approach is to apply controls where the risk warrants them.

That could mean stronger verification for a suspicious transaction while allowing a known customer with a clean history to continue through a lower-friction checkout.

Payments infrastructure should give merchants enough control to make that distinction.

VAMP monitoring should happen before the warning

The tighter 2026 VAMP threshold makes one thing clear: waiting for a compliance notice is not a risk strategy.

Merchants need visibility into fraud, disputes, enumeration, and the customer behaviors behind them while there is still time to respond.

That doesn't mean adding more friction to every transaction.

It means understanding where risk is coming from, applying controls where they are needed, and fixing the operational or customer experience issues that create avoidable disputes in the first place.

The 1.5% threshold tells you where Visa draws the line.

Good VAMP compliance means knowing where you're headed long before you get there.

Keep risk down without holding growth back

VAMP compliance isn’t the end goal. Protecting revenue is.

Frame gives merchants more control over payment and risk management, so they can respond to fraud and dispute trends without adding unnecessary friction to every transaction.

The outcome: fewer preventable disputes, less fraud exposure, stronger authorization performance, and more legitimate transactions making it through.

See how Frame can help you protect more revenue while keeping payment risk under control. Contact us.