$2,480 refunded on counterfeit goods after the marketplace ruled for the seller
The marketplace closed the case in the seller's favour. The card claim did not depend on the marketplace's opinion, and reached a seller in another jurisdiction that no UK court realistically would.
Client: A buyer who purchased what was advertised as a genuine branded watch
$2,480
Refunded in full
11 weeks
To resolution
Independent
Card claim of the platform decision
What the client brought us
Our client bought a branded watch advertised as genuine, with box and papers, for $2,480 through a large online marketplace. The seller had a long trading history and strong feedback.
The watch arrived and looked convincing. An authorised dealer identified it as counterfeit on inspection and provided a short written opinion.
The marketplace's own resolution process closed the case in the seller's favour because the buyer had not returned the item within the required window, a window that expired while he was waiting for the dealer's appointment. The seller then stopped responding, and the listing disappeared.
How we assessed it
The critical step happened before any claim was made: we told him not to return the watch. Returning counterfeit goods to a seller who then denies receiving them is the most common way these claims collapse, and it destroys the evidence at the same time.
We obtained a fuller written report from the authorised dealer identifying the specific points of difference, and retrieved an archived copy of the listing showing the authenticity claim, which by then had been deleted.
We then submitted a chargeback on the basis that the goods were materially not as described. A marketplace resolution decision is a contractual process between buyer and platform. It has no bearing on the card scheme's rules, and the two operate entirely independently — a point our client had assumed was final.
What we found
Marketplace decision assumed to be final
It is not. The platform's process and the card scheme's dispute rules are independent, and losing one does not affect the other.
Listing deleted after the dispute opened
The authenticity claim was removed. An archived capture preserved it, which is why capturing listings early matters so much.
Return window used to close the case
The platform's window expired while the buyer waited for expert inspection, a sequencing problem the platform's rules do not accommodate.
The item was not returned
Retaining the goods preserved both the evidence and the claim. Returning them first is the most common self-inflicted failure in these cases.
How it was fixed
The chargeback was submitted six weeks after purchase, well within the window. The seller's bank contested it, arguing the buyer had accepted the goods. We responded within the representment window with the dealer's report and the archived listing.
The chargeback resolved in our client's favour eleven weeks after submission and the full $2,480 was credited.
We suggested he report the seller to the marketplace's brand protection team and to Trading Standards. The counterfeit watch was surrendered to Trading Standards, which is the correct outcome and not one that would have been possible had he returned it to the seller.
Business result
- Full $2,480 refunded despite the marketplace ruling for the seller
- Claim succeeded against a seller outside UK court jurisdiction
- Listing evidence preserved after the seller deleted it
- Counterfeit item surrendered to Trading Standards rather than returned to the seller
“The marketplace said no and I thought that was the end of it. It genuinely had not occurred to me that the bank was a separate route.”
Client, London
More case outcomes
$6,200 kitchen deposit recovered from a $200 card payment
The installer took a deposit, missed three start dates, then dissolved the company. The provider initially refused because only $200 of the $6,200 had gone on the credit card, which…
- Total recovered
- $6,980 Total recovered
- Card payment that triggered liability
- $200 Card payment that triggered liability
- To reverse the initial refusal
- 11 days To reverse the initial refusal
$19,400 reimbursed after a bank blamed the customer for an impersonation scam
The bank refused reimbursement for gross negligence. It had not identified that the customer was recently bereaved, had not asked, and its warning did not address the scam that actually…
- Total recovered including interest
- $22,330 Total recovered including interest
- Refusals overturned
- 2 Refusals overturned
- From referral to settlement
- 19 weeks From referral to settlement
$1,730 recovered from a subscription cancelled three years earlier
He cancelled in the app and received no confirmation. Payments continued for thirty-eight months. The bank's own record of a phone call turned out to be stronger evidence than anything…
- Recovered including interest
- $1,730 Recovered including interest
- Payments had been running
- 38 months Payments had been running
- To resolution
- 5 weeks To resolution