If you are seeing more disputes than usual, Mastercard's Excessive Chargeback Program (ECP) is the system that can turn "we have a chargeback problem" into "our processing is at risk." ECP is part of Mastercard's broader Acquirer Chargeback Monitoring Program (ACMP), and it exists to push merchants and acquirers to reduce excessive disputes before they become a bigger ecosystem risk.
The fast answer: ECP looks at your chargebacks in a month relative to your Mastercard transaction volume, and if your account crosses Mastercard's thresholds you can be labeled an Excessive Chargeback Merchant (ECM) or a High Excessive Chargeback Merchant (HECM). Once you are in that bucket, your acquirer is on the hook to monitor you and you can face monthly assessments that escalate if you do not correct the underlying drivers.
Below is a merchant-focused guide to how Mastercard defines ECP performance, what ECM and HECM mean operationally, and what to do in the next 30 to 90 days if you are trending toward trouble.
Mastercard's Excessive Chargeback Program is a compliance program designed to make sure acquirers actively monitor chargeback performance at the merchant level and identify when a merchant exceeds Mastercard's monthly thresholds. Mastercard ties the program to the merchant ID (MID) used in clearing, so it is measured at the MID level, not at the brand level.
From your perspective as a merchant, ECP is the part of Mastercard's rulebook that says: when your disputes reach "excessive" levels, your acquiring bank and processor must treat you as a monitored merchant and can be assessed for noncompliance.
Mastercard uses a metric expressed in basis points. In the Security Rules and Procedures manual, Mastercard defines basis points as:
That basis points concept matters because many merchants focus only on "count" or only on "percentage." Mastercard is telling you it cares about both volume and ratio dynamics, and it may use different thresholds (and edits) for ECM vs HECM in the Data Integrity Monitoring Program materials.
Practical takeaway: your risk can rise even if your overall business is growing if your dispute drivers scale faster than your cleared volume, or if your volume drops and disputes stay flat.
At a high level:
In Mastercard's Security Rules and Procedures manual, ECM and HECM are defined as merchants identified as noncompliant in the ECM or HECM category of the "Excessive Chargeback Merchant edit (Edit 2)" in the Data Integrity Monitoring Program manual.
Merchants often hear ECM described with shorthand thresholds like "100 chargebacks and a 1.5% ratio" and HECM with a higher ratio and higher count, but those exact criteria live in the Data Integrity Monitoring Program documentation and can also vary based on Mastercard updates and your acquiring relationship.
If you want the most accurate view of your current thresholds, ask your processor for:
Two things happen quickly, even if you never get a formal "you are in ECP" email from Mastercard.
First, your acquirer is required to monitor merchants that exceed the ECM and HECM thresholds using Mastercard's Data Integrity application in Mastercard Connect.
Second, Mastercard can assess your acquirer for noncompliance with ECP, as described in the Data Integrity Monitoring Program documentation. In practice, that pressure flows downhill: your processor will push you to reduce disputes, and if you do not, they can add risk controls like reserves, rolling holds, settlement delays, or termination.
No, not automatically.
But ECP is the kind of label that changes how your processor views your account. Many acquirers will treat repeated ECM months as a risk indicator that triggers extra underwriting. That can show up as:
And if the pattern continues, the outcome can be account termination.
Mastercard explicitly calls out a six-month escalation trigger.
After a merchant has been an ECM and/or HECM for six months (consecutive or non-consecutive), Mastercard may advise the acquirer on action plan measures and/or require the acquirer to undergo a Franchise Management Program Customer Risk Review at the acquirer's expense.
That matters because it means "we had one bad month" is very different from "we keep bouncing into the program." Processors can tolerate a spike. They rarely tolerate repeat patterns.
In most cases, it is not one single issue. It is a stack of small failures that each adds a little friction for the cardholder until disputes become the default.
Here are the most common drivers we see:
You do not fix ECP by writing better rebuttals. You fix it by shrinking the pool of customers who feel like a dispute is their best option.
If your processor has warned you about Mastercard disputes, treat the next week like incident response.
Ask for a weekly snapshot with these fields:
Without that, you may fix the wrong thing.
You want to split disputes into buckets you can actually act on:
Each bucket has a different fix.
Programs like Ethoca Alerts and Verifi can give you a chance to refund before a dispute becomes a chargeback. (We have a full breakdown here: https://merchantalternatives.com/ethoca-vs-verifi-chargeback-alert-networks/)
Alerts are not a cure. But when you are fighting a ratio threshold, preventing 20 chargebacks can be the difference between a clean month and an ECM month.
Do this today:
A surprising number of disputes are "I cannot reach the company" disputes.
Most acquirers want a short, credible plan with numbers.
Use this structure:
If you are in a subscription model, Mastercard also publishes requirements and best practices around recurring billing and cancellation flows, and those can become mandatory if a recurring merchant is identified in ACMP for multiple months.
You need a mix of prevention, fast refunds, and better evidence when you do fight.
Below is a simplified way to think about the basis point concept Mastercard uses.
| Monthly Mastercard transactions (prior month) | Monthly chargebacks (current month) | Approx ratio | Approx basis points |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,000 | 100 | 1.00% | 100 |
| 10,000 | 150 | 1.50% | 150 |
| 5,000 | 100 | 2.00% | 200 |
| 2,000 | 60 | 3.00% | 300 |
The lesson: if your volume drops, your ratio and basis points can spike even if chargeback count is flat.
Visa and Mastercard both have monitoring programs, but the details differ.
Mastercard's ECP is framed around the ECM/HECM merchant categories and basis points in Mastercard documentation.
Visa has been moving toward combined metrics in some programs that blend fraud and disputes, so merchants should track both dispute ratios and fraud report volumes. The main takeaway is the same: the card brands are tightening tolerance for chronic disputes, and processors are increasingly proactive.
If you are operating close to thresholds on one brand, you should assume the others will notice too.
If a processor is talking about termination, take it seriously.
Mastercard discusses the use of MATCH Pro as a tool for identifying merchants that have previously been terminated for non-compliance, fraud, or excessive chargebacks. Being placed in MATCH can make it much harder to get approved elsewhere.
If you are at this stage, you need to do two things in parallel:
For high-risk or higher dispute models, you want a processor that can underwrite the model correctly instead of approving you as low-risk and then panicking when disputes rise.
ECP is Mastercard's program that requires acquirers to monitor chargeback performance at the merchant level and identifies when a merchant exceeds monthly ECP thresholds.
Mastercard defines basis points as the number of chargebacks received for a merchant in a calendar month divided by the number of Mastercard transactions in the preceding month for that merchant, multiplied by 10,000.
Mastercard states that after a merchant has been an ECM and/or HECM for six months (consecutive or non-consecutive), Mastercard may advise the acquirer on action plan measures and/or require a Customer Risk Review for the acquirer.
Mastercard's documentation describes assessment authority aimed at the acquirer for noncompliance. In practice, many processors pass costs and risk controls down to the merchant through reserves, fees, or stricter contract terms.
The fastest levers are (1) issuing refunds before disputes mature into chargebacks, (2) improving support responsiveness and descriptor clarity so cardholders contact you first, and (3) fixing the top dispute drivers by reason code (shipping, product expectations, subscriptions).
No. If your main goal is to get out of monitoring, prevention and fast refunds often reduce your ratio faster than representment. You should still fight clear cases of friendly fraud, but avoid a blanket "fight everything" approach that ties up resources and does not move the ratio.
If your business model naturally runs higher refund or dispute rates, the wrong processor will approve you, then add reserves and restrictions when the first spike hits.
You can apply for a merchant account through Easy Pay Direct or another processor that fits your model. Other options worth a look: