> your assertion that the issuing bank has the last word is simply not true.
Fair enough, I was categorising arbitration as legal escalation, given its binding arbitration and precludes the courts. But yes, the final decider is either a court or arbitration (for MasterCard).
Until escalated to arbitration or the courts, the issuing bank has last word. And in no case is the issuer eating the chargeback, the worst they’re eating is a few hundred dollars of arb fees and service costs.
> Until escalated to arbitration or the courts, the issuing bank has last word.
Again, no. It depends on the type of chargeback (in particular, whether that type implies an "allocation" or a "collaboration" flow [1]) which party, i.e. issuer or acquirer, requests arbitration, and by extension who has the last word in case arbitration does not happen.
Fair enough, I was categorising arbitration as legal escalation, given its binding arbitration and precludes the courts. But yes, the final decider is either a court or arbitration (for MasterCard).
Until escalated to arbitration or the courts, the issuing bank has last word. And in no case is the issuer eating the chargeback, the worst they’re eating is a few hundred dollars of arb fees and service costs.