The threshold moved, and the margin got tighter
Visa updated the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program in April 2026. The headline change is straightforward: the "excessive" threshold for the ratio of fraud and disputes to settled transactions dropped from 220 basis points to 150 basis points in the US, Canada, and the EU. That is a 32% reduction in the room a merchant has before Visa flags them for enhanced monitoring.
The formula itself has not changed. VAMP calculates (Fraud TC40 + Disputes TC15) / Settled Transactions TC05. A merchant enters monitoring when they exceed both the ratio threshold and 1,500 monthly events. But the lower ceiling means merchants who were comfortably below the old line may now be cutting it close.
A worked example with real numbers
Take a merchant processing 100,000 Visa transactions a month. Under the old threshold, 220 of every 10,000 transactions could be flagged as fraud or disputes before the ratio triggered. That worked out to 2,200 monthly events on 100,000 transactions.
Under the new threshold, that number drops to 1,500. The same merchant with the same transaction volume now has 32% fewer events before they cross the line. And because the monthly event floor is also 1,500, a merchant of this size enters monitoring the moment they hit the ratio, with no buffer.
For a smaller merchant processing 50,000 transactions, the math changes again. 150 basis points on 50,000 is 750 events, which is below the 1,500 event floor. That merchant would need to exceed both thresholds simultaneously to trigger monitoring. But the ratio is still being tracked, and Visa can still flag patterns that suggest the merchant is headed in the wrong direction.
First party misuse is the fastest growing problem
Here is where it gets complicated. 64% of merchants now report increasing first party misuse, where the actual cardholder disputes a legitimate transaction. That is not traditional fraud. The card was not stolen. The purchase was real. But the cardholder filed a dispute anyway, either because they did not recognize the charge, regretted the purchase, or wanted a refund without returning the product.
Under VAMP, first party misuse counts the same as third party fraud. A dispute is a dispute in the formula, regardless of whether the cardholder was the one who made the purchase. That means a merchant with zero actual fraud exposure can still breach the threshold on disputes alone.
What Verifi’s tools do for the ratio
Visa’s own dispute prevention tools, RDR (Rapid Dispute Resolution) and CDRN (Cardholder Dispute Resolution Network), can intercept disputes before they count against the VAMP ratio. RDR automatically refunds qualifying disputes based on rules the merchant sets in advance. CDRN alerts the merchant in real time when a dispute is filed, giving them a window to resolve it before it becomes a chargeback.
The practical effect is that merchants who use these tools can remove a portion of their disputes from the VAMP calculation entirely. That does not fix the underlying problem, a customer who wanted a refund still got one, but it keeps the ratio below the threshold and avoids the escalating consequences of monitoring.
The enforcement timeline matters
Visa does not impose penalties on the first month a merchant exceeds the threshold. The program works in stages: notification, then monitoring, then escalating fines that can reach $25,000 per month or more for merchants who remain in breach. For acquirers, the stakes are higher, because VAMP tracks the acquirer’s overall portfolio, not just individual merchants.
That means the acquirer has an incentive to act before Visa does. If your processing partner starts asking questions about your dispute rate, the VAMP threshold change is probably why.
CX Pay operates Visa acquiring across 30+ territories. The VAMP changes apply to every merchant in the network, and the company tracks these ratios as part of its standard risk monitoring. If you are not sure where your numbers stand, that is a conversation worth having before the math catches up.