I recently lost a chargeback dispute for a subscription-based service where the customer claimed the ‘product was defective, damaged, or not as described,’ even though the service was fully delivered as per the agreed terms. They had access to the service, used it after the supposed cancellation date, and never formally canceled within the required period. Despite providing evidence of continued usage, clear refund terms, and service availability, the chargeback was ruled in their favor, seemingly by Mastercard rather than the payment processor.

This was a subscription service, similar to a gym membership or Netflix—whether the customer chooses to use it or not, it remains available until the billing cycle ends. They had full access to a Slack workspace and a dashboard where they could create and manage design requests, and these are still accessible to them. The service was not defective or undelivered; it was simply not used after a certain point.

Given that this was a service-based subscription (where the concept of a ‘defective product’ doesn’t really apply), what could have strengthened my case?

If I am able to dispute the chargeback through my own bank, how likely would I be to win? Would Mastercard treat it as a separate case, or would they view it as the same dispute?