Billing and Fee Disputes

Merchant statements do not always match the pricing disclosed in the merchant agreement. A statement may include a charge that does not appear in the fee schedule, use a calculation the agreement does not support, or group the deduction under a label that does not explain what was charged.

Rome LLP represents merchants in disputes over fees deducted from settlement proceeds or reserve funds. The firm handles individual claims, coordinated merchant recoveries, and class actions involving standardized agreements and billing practices.

Fee Disclosure and Calculation

Merchant pricing is commonly set out in the application or schedule of fees. Other provisions may appear in separate terms and conditions, addenda, or later notices. The documents must be read together, but a general provision addressing chargebacks, termination, or card-brand liability does not necessarily authorize the amount later deducted.

Card-brand rules impose their own disclosure requirements. Mastercard requires a separate or distinct fee disclosure that clearly explains how each merchant fee is calculated, including any termination charge. Visa standards require acquiring banks to oversee agent pricing and ensure that charges are clearly communicated in writing and accepted by the merchant.

A fee schedule may disclose a fixed chargeback fee, while the monthly statement adds a separate “enhanced chargeback” fee calculated under a method that does not appear in the fee disclosure. The agreement may describe that charge as a monthly fee, while the statement reflects an amount multiplied across every chargeback.

The merchant application may omit an early termination fee (“ETF”), state that no ETF applies, or disclose a fixed fee such as $350, while separate terms authorize a five-figure charge calculated by multiplying average monthly fees by the number of months remaining in the term. A statement may then show a manual ETF entry that consumes the remaining reserve balance without identifying the contractual basis or calculation used.

Dispute-related fees often depend on how the underlying transaction is classified. Visa Rapid Dispute Resolution can resolve a matter before it becomes a chargeback. A merchant may nevertheless be billed the contractual chargeback fee for the RDR transaction or have it included in reported dispute activity. That can inflate both the fees and the merchant’s apparent dispute ratio.

Monitoring fees and card-brand assessments may be imposed without the records needed to verify them. A fee may appear before the effective date stated in the merchant notice. The statement may not identify the transactions counted, the ratio used, or whether the card brand imposed any corresponding assessment upstream. A charge described as a pass-through fee may also include an added amount that was never disclosed.

A billing label does not establish that the charge was authorized. Authorization depends on the agreement, the disclosed calculation method, the event that triggered the fee, and the authority of the party that deducted it.

Statements, Notice, and Objections

Merchant agreements often require written notice of a billing dispute within a specified period after the statement date. The acquiring side may invoke a late objection to argue that the charge is final.

A late-objection argument may depend on whether the merchant received the statement and had enough information to identify the charge. Portal access may be terminated with the merchant account, and statements may stop arriving. Even when a statement is available, it may show only a broad entry such as “ADJUSTMENT,” with no transaction identifier or explanation indicating whether the item was a chargeback, an RDR-resolved pre-dispute, a card-brand assessment, or another charge.

A pricing notice may also omit the information needed to evaluate the charge. A notice stating that a fee will apply to each monitoring case does not necessarily identify which transactions qualify, how the ratio will be calculated, whether pre-dispute items will be included, or whether the amount reflects a charge actually imposed by the card brand.

A merchant may object promptly, receive a promise of a credit, and then wait months while additional fees continue to be deducted. Those communications may rebut a late-objection defense and show that the processor acknowledged the disputed charge or promised to reverse it.

Recovering Improper Fees

Resolving these disputes often requires transaction-level records, dispute exports, reserve activity, monitoring-program data, and internal fee records. Rome LLP uses those records to test the calculation and quantify unsupported charges. The same records may reveal a merchant-specific billing error or a fee practice applied across part or all of a merchant portfolio.

Where disputed charges were taken from a post-termination reserve, the fee and reserve issues should be evaluated together.

Rome LLP pursues recovery before suit and through arbitration or litigation. The firm also brings class claims when the same agreement and billing method affected a broader group of merchants.