Why is up to 30-90% of fraud often classified as friendly fraud?

As strange as the name sounds, there's nothing particularly friendly about it.

It usually refers to cases where a legitimate cardholder later disputes a transaction, claiming it was unauthorised or unrecognised.

Depending on the industry, this can be anywhere between 30% to 90% of all fraud cases.

Which makes it a very different kind of problem, because now you're not trying to detect fraud before it happens, you're trying to prove what already happened.

The dispute process

That's where the dispute process comes in — compiling evidence, pulling transaction data, device signals, behavioural patterns, delivery confirmation. All to demonstrate that the transaction was legitimate.

The challenge is how fragmented and manual the process is. Even for teams that understand it well, it can take time, attention, and consistency to do it properly.

Why we built FraudPulse

This is one of the areas that led Yaniv Hayun and me to build FraudPulse.

Instead of just flagging a chargeback, the idea is to go one step further.

If something looks like friendly fraud, the system can pull the relevant data, structure it, and generate the full compelling evidence document automatically.

Beyond that, it also tells you what to do next and answers:

• What's happening?
• Why it's happening?
• How to reduce it going forward?

The idea is to make fraud easier to deal with. If you're working with chargebacks like this and it's taking up too much time, happy to share early access.