Solutions
End-to-end acquiring strategy covering merchant onboarding, high-risk portfolios, card acceptance optimisation, chargeback management and PayFac structures.
Card acceptance infrastructure has changed more in the past five years than in the preceding two decades. The traditional model, a dedicated POS terminal connected to an acquirer via a payment application, is being supplemented and in some segments displaced by SoftPOS solutions that turn a merchant's Android device into a contactless acceptance point, eliminating terminal hardware costs. PIN on Glass, now certified under PCI CPoC and EMVCo standards, extends SoftPOS to transactions requiring cardholder verification, removing the last functional gap between dedicated hardware and software-only acceptance. Meanwhile, the omnichannel expectation, that a transaction started online can be completed in-store, and that a return processed at a till can reference an online purchase, requires acceptance infrastructure that treats all channels as a single transaction environment rather than separate stacks with separate data silos.
The economics of card acceptance reward merchants who understand the components of their cost. Interchange optimisation, submitting the transaction data that qualifies for lower interchange tiers, can meaningfully reduce effective rates, particularly for B2B merchants who can submit Level 2 and Level 3 data on corporate card transactions. Least-cost routing for dual-network debit cards allows merchants and acquirers to select the lower-cost network in real time; in markets where this is permitted, LCR typically reduces debit acceptance costs by 20–40 basis points. Surcharging rules vary by market and card type, the EU prohibits surcharging on consumer cards, while other markets permit it within defined limits. Understanding the full interchange and scheme fee schedule, not just the headline MDR, is foundational to any meaningful cost-of-acceptance analysis.
The MENA region presents a distinct acceptance context. Cash remains the dominant payment method across much of the Gulf and North Africa, and electronic acceptance penetration is a policy priority for several governments. QR code acceptance, both static and dynamic, has gained traction as a low-cost entry point for smaller merchants who cannot justify terminal hardware investment. Government-mandated acceptance schemes, including requirements to accept local debit schemes and BNPL instruments, are increasingly shaping the acceptance technology choices available to acquirers and merchants. Unattended payments, EV charging stations, kiosks, vending machines, parking, represent a fast-growing acceptance category with specific requirements around transaction authorisation, contactless limits, and fallback behaviour when connectivity is intermittent.
Merchant onboarding is where acquirers and payment facilitators make their most consequential risk decisions, and where the commercial pressure to move fast conflicts most directly with the obligation to know who you are boarding. The traditional acquirer process, application intake, KYB documentation, business model review, processing history verification, risk scoring, pricing committee sign-off, agreement execution, routinely took two to four weeks and required significant manual effort. Modern payment facilitators running sub-merchant onboarding have compressed this to minutes through automation, straight-through processing logic, and real-time data enrichment. The gap between these two models represents both a commercial opportunity and a risk management challenge: speed benefits legitimate merchants, but it also shortens the window available to detect fraud and misrepresentation.
Good underwriting is built on three pillars: identity (is this entity and its principals who they claim to be), business model (does the described activity match the MCC, the website, the processing history, and the expected customer profile), and financial risk (what is the likely chargeback exposure and does the reserve structure adequately cover it). KYB goes beyond verifying company registration, it requires beneficial ownership identification, director background checks, sanctions screening, and in many cases a review of the actual product or service being sold. Processing history from prior acquirers, where obtainable, is one of the most predictive inputs; a merchant leaving one acquirer rarely does so for benign reasons. Risk tiering determines the ongoing monitoring intensity, the reserve level, and in some cases the pricing structure applied.
Common failure points in merchant onboarding include identity fraud (fabricated or stolen business identities used to obtain a merchant account), misrepresentation of business model (a high-risk operation boarding under a low-risk MCC), and straw merchants, entities established specifically to process transactions on behalf of another, undisclosed business. These are not edge cases; they account for a disproportionate share of acquirer losses and scheme fines. We work with acquirers and PayFacs to design onboarding workflows that lift STP rates on clean applications while applying targeted friction where the risk indicators warrant it, including integration with company registry APIs, adverse media monitoring, website content analysis, and processing behaviour analytics that flag anomalies post-boarding before losses crystallise.
High-risk acquiring is a specialist discipline, not a variation on standard acquiring with a higher price tag. The defining characteristic of a high-risk merchant is that one or more risk dimensions, chargeback propensity, regulatory complexity, reputational exposure, or restricted MCC classification, places it outside the appetite of mainstream acquirers. The principal verticals are well-established: online gaming and gambling, forex and CFD brokers, travel and ticketing with their extended fulfilment windows, nutraceuticals and subscription businesses using negative option billing, adult content, firearms accessories, and crypto exchanges. Each presents a distinct risk profile. A gambling operator in a regulated market with a Gambling Commission licence and solid chargeback history is a very different credit risk to an unlicensed gaming site processing through a nominee merchant. Conflating the two is a pricing error as much as a risk management failure.
The risk management framework for high-risk portfolios is more intensive than for standard merchant books. Visa's VDMP (Visa Dispute Monitoring Programme) and Mastercard's ECM (Excessive Chargeback Merchant) programme impose escalating fines and ultimately disqualification for merchants whose chargeback ratios breach programme thresholds, typically 0.9% to 1.0% of transactions by count. Rolling reserves, funds withheld from merchant settlement for a defined period, typically six months on a rolling basis, are the primary structural tool for managing credit exposure on high-risk accounts. Enhanced monitoring means weekly or daily review of chargeback volumes, transaction patterns, and refund rates rather than the monthly cadence applied to standard merchants. Real-time chargeback alert services through Verifi and Ethoca allow merchants and acquirers to resolve disputes before they formally enter the scheme dispute cycle.
The commercial dynamics of high-risk acquiring reflect the genuine cost of the risk carried. Processing fees run significantly higher than for standard merchant categories, MDRs of 3% to 7% are common in the riskiest verticals, and the spread between acquiring income and risk cost compresses rapidly if the portfolio is not actively managed. Most banks decline this segment entirely, either because internal policy prohibits certain MCCs outright or because the reputational and regulatory scrutiny is assessed as disproportionate to the return. The acquirers that operate here, specialist high-risk acquirers, certain offshore banks, and some Electronic Money Institutions, do so because they have built the underwriting capability, the monitoring infrastructure, and the regulatory relationships required to manage it profitably. We help firms assess whether high-risk acquiring is a viable strategic extension and, where it is, build the frameworks to manage it without importing uncontrolled liability.
A chargeback is not simply a refund, it is a formal scheme dispute process with defined time limits, evidentiary requirements, and financial consequences that extend well beyond the value of the original transaction. The lifecycle begins when a cardholder contacts their issuing bank to dispute a transaction. The issuer reviews the claim and, if it meets the threshold for a dispute, initiates a chargeback by debiting the acquirer. Reason codes define the claimed basis for the dispute: Visa organises its dispute categories around fraud, authorisation, processing errors, and consumer disputes; Mastercard uses a parallel family structure. Each reason code carries different time limits, typically 120 days from transaction processing date for fraud disputes, and requires different evidence to contest. Failure to respond within the window forfeits the right to dispute regardless of the merits.
A significant proportion of chargebacks received by merchants are avoidable. Poor transaction descriptors, where the name appearing on the cardholder's statement does not match the merchant they recognise, drive friendly fraud disputes where no genuine fraud occurred. Missing or failed CVV and AVS checks remove the issuer's incentive to absorb fraud liability. Absent 3DS authentication means the merchant retains fraud liability that 3DS would have shifted to the issuer, the liability shift is one of the most commercially significant features of the 3DS protocol. For merchants with elevated chargeback ratios, the consequences escalate through scheme monitoring programmes: initial thresholds trigger notification and incremental fines, breaching higher thresholds can result in monthly fines of tens of thousands of pounds, and sustained breach leads to disqualification, the loss of the ability to accept that scheme's cards. Pre-arbitration and arbitration, where disputes are escalated to the scheme for a binding decision, carry additional fees of $250–$500 per case regardless of outcome.
Effective dispute management combines technology, process, and evidence discipline. Chargeback management platforms centralise incoming disputes across multiple acquirers, automate reason code analysis, and manage response deadlines. Chargeback alert services, Verifi's CDRN and Ethoca's alerts, notify merchants of pending disputes before they formally become chargebacks, providing a short window to issue a refund and prevent the dispute progressing. Visa's Order Insight and Mastercard's Consumer Clarity programmes allow merchants to push transaction detail, receipt data, delivery confirmation, customer communications, directly to the issuer's dispute interface, resolving many cardholder queries before a dispute is ever raised. Representment, contesting a chargeback with compelling evidence, can achieve win rates of 40–70% on winnable reason codes when the evidence package is correctly assembled. We work with merchants and acquirers to build dispute programmes that reduce avoidable chargebacks at source, automate representment workflows, and manage scheme programme compliance before ratios breach critical thresholds.
Payment facilitation allows software platforms and marketplaces to board and pay sub-merchants under their own master merchant agreement, taking ownership of the underwriting risk in exchange for a larger share of payment economics. For SaaS platforms, vertical software businesses, and marketplaces across the GCC that are evaluating whether to become PayFacs, register as ISOs, or adopt an embedded finance model, the commercial and regulatory trade-offs are significant. A PayFac model delivers interchange revenue, pricing control, and a frictionless merchant experience, but it also requires scheme registration with Visa and Mastercard (and regional schemes including mada and BENEFIT), capital reserves for chargeback exposure, and an underwriting and monitoring function capable of managing a sub-merchant portfolio. The ISO model preserves simplicity but sacrifices economics. Advisory engagements help platforms model the revenue impact, understand the compliance obligations at each level of the stack, and structure the right partnership or direct relationship with an acquiring bank.
QR code payments and digital wallet acceptance have expanded significantly across GCC markets, driven by central bank mandates, scheme-level wallet programmes, and consumer adoption of mobile-first payment methods. In Qatar, the QCB mandates Himyan QR support at point of sale. In Saudi Arabia, mada Pay and STC Pay are mainstream acceptance requirements for any merchant serving Saudi consumers. In the UAE, Alipay+, Apple Pay, Google Pay, and BENEFIT Pay together account for a significant share of in-store and in-app transactions. For merchants and acquirers, QR and wallet acceptance involves distinct technical, commercial, and compliance considerations, EMVCo QR specifications, wallet tokenisation, scheme-level certification requirements, and the specific MDR structures that apply to wallet-initiated transactions. Understanding which wallets matter in which markets, and how to configure acceptance correctly, is not straightforward and directly impacts both cost and conversion.
Speak directly with a specialist across any of these areas.