When a Purchase Goes Wrong: Chargeback, Section 75 and Reg Z Compared
By the NorwegianSpark Editorial Team · Written with AI assistance.
Disclosure: This article may contain affiliate links. If you click and make a purchase, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. See our full disclosure.
Three different mechanisms can get your money back when a card purchase goes wrong, and people use the words interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. One is a private rulebook, one is an Act of Parliament, and one is a federal regulation with a geographic limit that surprises almost everyone who reads it for the first time. Choosing the wrong one, or missing the deadline on the right one, is the most common reason a good claim fails.
The chargeback is not a law
A chargeback is a rule of the payment scheme. Visa, Mastercard and Amex each publish a rulebook that governs when an issuing bank may reverse a settled transaction and push the loss back to the merchant's acquiring bank. The reason codes, the evidence each side must file, and the time limits all come from that rulebook.
This matters for one reason. A scheme rule can be amended by the scheme. A statutory right cannot, and it does not depend on the merchant's acquirer still existing or the scheme agreeing with you. When people say "the bank refused my chargeback so I have no options", they have usually confused the private route for the whole map.
What the chargeback is genuinely good at is speed and breadth: it works on debit as well as credit, it has no lower value threshold of its own, and it does not care where the merchant is. Start there. Just do not stop there.
Section 75: the issuer is liable as if it made the promise
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is unusually strong, and the strength is in the words. Where a debtor has a claim against the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract, they have "a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor".
Jointly and severally liable means you can pursue the card issuer for the full amount. Not a share of it, and not only after the seller has failed to pay. The issuer is then entitled under section 75(2) to be indemnified by the supplier — but that is the issuer's problem, not yours.
The limits are in section 75(3). The claim does not apply to a non-commercial agreement, and it does not apply "so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000". Two things are routinely misread here:
- The test is the cash price of the item, not the amount you charged to the card. A deposit of a few pounds on a qualifying item does not fall outside the section merely because the deposit was small.
- It is a single item test. Splitting one purchase across several small line items is not the same as buying several items.
Section 75 is a credit protection. It applies to credit agreements, which is why it reaches credit cards and not debit cards — one of the few genuinely decisive reasons to put a large purchase on credit even when you intend to clear it immediately. It also has no geographic restriction of the kind the US rule carries below.
Reg Z: narrower than people expect, in a specific way
The United States has an analogue, and it is worth reading before relying on it. Under 12 CFR 1026.12(c) a cardholder may assert against the card issuer the claims and defenses arising from the transaction, and may withhold payment up to the amount of credit outstanding for the disputed property or services, plus finance charges on that amount. If they do withhold, paragraph (c)(2) forbids the issuer from reporting that amount as delinquent until the dispute is settled or judgment is rendered.
Then come the limitations in (c)(3)(i). The rights apply only if the cardholder "has made a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the person honoring the credit card", and the amount "exceeds $50", and the transaction "occurred in the same state as the cardholder's current designated address or, if not within the same state, within 100 miles from that address".
That 100-mile rule is real, it is current, and it is the reason a US claims-and-defenses argument frequently does not reach a purchase made on holiday. There is an exclusion where the merchant is controlled by or affiliated with the issuer, which is why co-branded arrangements can behave differently.
The separate 60-day clock
Distinct from claims and defenses is the billing error procedure in 12 CFR 1026.13. This is the route for a charge that is wrong on its face: something you did not authorise, a wrong amount, goods not delivered as agreed.
The deadline is strict. The creditor must receive written notice no later than "60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error", and the notice must enable the creditor to identify your name and account number and, to the extent possible, indicate what you believe is wrong.
Two implications people miss. The clock starts at the statement, not the purchase — so a charge that appears late gets its 60 days from when it appeared. And it is a deadline for your notice, not for the resolution, which follows its own timetable.
Unauthorised use is a different question entirely
If the transaction was never yours, you are not in a purchase dispute at all. 12 CFR 1026.12(b) caps liability for unauthorised use at $50, and conditions even that on the issuer having disclosed that the liability "shall not exceed $50 (or any lesser amount)" and described a means of notification. In practice most issuers absorb the whole amount, but the $50 is the legal floor beneath the marketing promise.
| Chargeback | Section 75 (UK) | Reg Z claims and defenses (US) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Card scheme rulebook | Consumer Credit Act 1974 | 12 CFR 1026.12(c) |
| Type of right | Contractual, between banks | Statutory | Regulatory |
| Card types | Credit and debit | Credit agreements | Credit cards |
| Value limits | Set by the scheme | Item cash price over £100, not more than £30,000 | Amount must exceed $50 |
| Geographic limit | None in principle | None | Same state, or within 100 miles of your address |
| Prior steps | Scheme-defined | None required by the section | Good faith attempt with the merchant first |
| Against whom | The merchant, via the acquirer | The issuer, jointly with the seller | The issuer |
What to do, in order
Contact the merchant first. In the US it is a precondition of the claims-and-defenses route, and everywhere else it is the fastest resolution when the seller is simply disorganised rather than dishonest. Keep the attempt in writing — a good faith attempt you cannot evidence is worth less than one you can.
Then work the deadline that binds soonest. In the US that is usually the 60-day billing-error window; put the notice in even if you are still talking to the merchant, because the conversation does not pause the clock. In the UK, a Section 75 claim has no equivalent short statutory window, so the chargeback timetable is normally the tighter one.
Finally, do not abandon the statutory route because the private one failed. A declined chargeback is the scheme deciding a scheme question. It is not a court, and in the UK it is not Section 75.
A chargeback tells you what the scheme thinks. Section 75 tells you what the issuer owes. Those are different questions with different answers, and losing the first has never settled the second.
If the underlying problem was a currency charge rather than a faulty purchase, the mechanism is different again — dynamic currency conversion and what your card really charges abroad cover that. If the charge was fraudulent rather than disputed, virtual card numbers are the preventative half of the same subject.
Rules change and this is not legal advice. The statutory text linked above is the authority; read it, or take advice, before acting on a claim of any size.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a chargeback a legal right?
No. A chargeback is a rule of the card scheme — Visa, Mastercard, Amex — enforced between the issuing bank and the merchant's acquiring bank. It is contractual machinery you benefit from, not a statutory right you hold, and the scheme sets the reason codes, the evidence standards and the deadlines. That is the single most important difference between a chargeback and the statutory protections below, because a statutory right survives the scheme changing its rulebook.
What does Section 75 actually cover?
Section 75 of the UK Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes the creditor jointly and severally liable with the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract. In plain terms, the card issuer is liable for the seller's failure as if it had made the promise itself. The limitation is in section 75(3)(b): the claim does not apply where the single item has a cash price not exceeding £100, or more than £30,000. Note the wording is about the item's cash price, not what you actually put on the card.
Does the US have an equivalent of Section 75?
Something narrower. 12 CFR 1026.12(c) gives a cardholder the right to assert against the issuer the claims and defenses they have against the merchant, but paragraph (c)(3)(i) limits it: you must have made a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant, the amount must exceed $50, and the transaction must have occurred in the same state as your designated address or within 100 miles of it. There is an exclusion where the merchant is controlled by or affiliated with the issuer.
How long do I have to dispute a billing error in the US?
Under 12 CFR 1026.13(b)(1) the creditor must receive your notice no later than 60 days after it transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error. The notice must let the creditor identify your name and account number and, to the extent possible, indicate what you believe is wrong. That 60-day clock runs from the statement, not from the purchase, and it is the deadline people most often miss.
How much can I be liable for if my card is used fraudulently?
In the US, 12 CFR 1026.12(b) caps a cardholder's liability for unauthorised use at $50 — and the rule requires the issuer to have told you that the liability will not exceed $50 and to have described how to notify it. Most issuers voluntarily go further and charge nothing. Unauthorised use is a different question from a purchase dispute: the first is about a transaction you never made, the second is about one you did make and did not get what you paid for.