There was a time when paying with your card meant a clear decision. You handed it to someone, they made the purchase, and everyone understood what that meant. There was intent, a moment of choice, and no confusion about who approved it.
Now picture the same thing in today's digital world. A customer is shopping online and gets a message or link that looks completely legitimate, maybe an offer, a flash sale, or even a refund request from what appears to be a familiar brand. They click, land on a site that looks just like the real one, and proceed to complete their purchase. Everything feels normal: the checkout page, the security logos, even the authentication screen from their bank. They approve the transaction on their phone, just like they always do. A few minutes later, they realize something's off. The site was fake, and their money is gone.
From the issuer's perspective, the transaction looks perfect. Strong customer authentication? Passed. Device check? Passed. Merchant data? Valid. Every system signal says "legitimate". But now the customer is calling in, insisting, "I was tricked. I thought I was buying from a real website".
And that is where the real tension begins. The issuer can see that the cardholder approved the purchase themselves. The network rules say it is a fully authenticated transaction, which means no chargeback rights. Yet the cardholder genuinely feels like a victim of fraud, because in a way, they are. They did not intend to send their money to a scammer. They were deceived into authorizing it.
In the physical world, it is clear who is responsible. You hand over your card, you own the choice. In the digital world, that clarity disappears. Scammers exploit the trust we have built into online shopping, the familiar interfaces and seamless authentication flows.
Issuers are stuck in a difficult spot. On one side, there is the human story: the cardholder who has been manipulated and expects their bank to help. On the other, there is the rulebook, and it is not built for deception that happens within an authenticated transaction. Mastercard and other networks are starting to acknowledge this gap. There is growing discussion around classifying these scams as "reported fraud" but processing them under non-fraud reason codes, to reflect the fact that yes, a scam occurred, even if it does not fit neatly into the existing definitions.
But for issuers, the practical challenge is immediate. Do you refund the cardholder anyway, even though the network will not support it? Do you decline and risk damaging trust? Do you treat it as fraud, as a dispute, or as something entirely new? Each decision has consequences for operations, for compliance, and for your brand's promise of protection.
And the problem is not slowing down. These scams are getting smarter. Fraudsters know exactly how online checkout flows look, what authentication screens banks use, and how to mimic them perfectly. The result is a surge in what looks like legitimate, authenticated spending, except it is all built on deception.
This is why dispute management can not stay static. It is not just about processing claims anymore, it is about understanding context. Who did the cardholder think they were paying? What site were they on? How did they get there? Was the authentication genuine, or guided by a fraudster in the background? These are the new questions that define whether a customer is protected or left exposed.
At Lean Industries, we think about this shift every day. Our focus is not just on managing disputes faster, but on helping issuers see the full picture. When your systems capture richer data, when you can connect behavior, context, and evidence, you can make smarter decisions. You can handle these "authorized scams" consistently, fairly, and transparently, even when the rules have not caught up.
Because the truth is, this is where payments are headed. Fraud is not always brute force anymore; it is persuasion. The strongest defenses in the world will not matter if the customer believes the scam is real. And when that happens, what issuers need most is not just a process, it is clarity.
Tomorrow disputes will not just be about what was bought or who approved it, but about what the customer thought they were doing. That is a new kind of challenge, and it is one we are already helping issuers prepare for.