VAMP: Visa's Acquirer Monitoring Program Explained

Ask most gambling operators what killed their Visa approval rates last year and they'll blame the issuers. Look closer and the pressure often traces back to their own acquirer getting squeezed by a programme called VAMP.

VAMP is the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program, and it changed the maths on fraud and disputes in a way that lands hardest on high-risk merchants. It rolled two old monitoring programmes into one ratio, then spent 2025 and 2026 tightening the numbers.

This guide explains what VAMP measures, what the current thresholds are, and the specific reasons iGaming sits in the danger zone. Facts verified as of August 2026.

What is VAMP?

VAMP is Visa's programme for monitoring the fraud and dispute performance of acquirers and their merchants. It replaced two older schemes - the Visa Dispute Monitoring Program (VDMP) and the Visa Fraud Monitoring Program (VFMP) - with a single combined ratio.

Term: VAMP. Definition: The Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program, a scheme that tracks each merchant's and acquirer's combined fraud and dispute volume against a set of thresholds, with fees and remediation for those that breach them.

The programme launched on 1 April 2025. Visa set out the framework in its Ecosystem Risk Programs materials and a dedicated VAMP fact sheet.

The name matters. VAMP monitors acquirers, not merchants directly. Visa holds the acquirer accountable for its portfolio ratio, and the acquirer passes that pressure down to individual merchants. If you run a gambling brand and your PSP suddenly asks for a fraud remediation plan, VAMP is usually why.

How is the VAMP ratio calculated?

The VAMP ratio is a merchant's combined fraud and dispute count divided by its settled transactions in a calendar month. Fraud is counted from TC40 reports, disputes from TC15 chargeback records, and the two are added together on the top line.

Term: VAMP ratio. Definition: (TC40 fraud reports + TC15 disputes) divided by total settled transactions, measured monthly.

The single-ratio design is the whole point. Under the old chargeback and fraud programmes, a merchant could clear the fraud programme while quietly failing on disputes, or the reverse. VAMP adds them, so a business with moderate fraud and moderate disputes can breach on the combined figure even though neither number alone would have triggered the older schemes.

Two exclusions soften it. Non-fraud disputes resolved through Rapid Dispute Resolution (RDR) and similar pre-dispute tools drop out of the count, and fraud transactions that qualify under Compelling Evidence 3.0 are also excluded. Both are real levers, and I'll come back to them.

What are the VAMP thresholds for 2026?

VAMP sets separate thresholds for acquirers and merchants, and both tightened during 2026. A merchant is flagged as excessive at a VAMP ratio of 1.5% or above; acquirer portfolios are measured against tighter limits.

The merchant number moved. At launch the excessive threshold was 2.2%; from 1 April 2026 it dropped to 1.5% across the US, Canada and Europe. Latin America and the Caribbean have run on 1.5% since April 2025.

For acquirers, Visa uses two levels: an above-standard threshold of 0.5% and an excessive threshold of 0.7% on the portfolio VAMP ratio. Above-standard enforcement began on 1 January 2026, after excessive enforcement started on 1 October 2025.

A count floor applies too. The thresholds only bite once a merchant records at least 1,500 combined fraud and dispute cases in the month, so very small books aren't caught by a handful of chargebacks. VAMP also introduced a separate enumeration ratio set at 20%, aimed at card-testing and enumeration attacks rather than ordinary disputes.

Visa attaches a fee to disputes counted against a breaching merchant. The figure has been reported at around US$8 to US$10 per dispute depending on region and category; treat the exact number as something to confirm with your acquirer, because Visa has adjusted it and it varies by market.

Why does VAMP hit iGaming operators harder?

Gambling combines high transaction frequency, high deposit values and a well-documented friendly-fraud problem, so it generates more TC40 and TC15 records per pound processed than most sectors. Adding fraud and disputes together, as VAMP does, stacks the two categories where iGaming is already exposed.

Friendly fraud is the core issue. A player deposits, loses, then disputes the transaction with their bank claiming they never authorised it. That single event can land as both a fraud report and a dispute, and it drives the combined ratio in exactly the direction VAMP punishes. Our guide to iGaming chargebacks covers why gambling disputes behave differently from retail ones.

The knock-on effect is what operators feel. An acquirer watching its portfolio ratio creep toward 0.5% will offload its worst-performing merchants, tighten fraud rules, or ask for bigger rolling reserves. High-risk gambling accounts are the first to feel that, because they contribute the most to the acquirer's number. This is one more reason high-risk merchant accounts come with the terms they do.

VAMP vs VDMP and VFMP: what changed?

VDMP tracked disputes and VFMP tracked fraud, each with its own ratio and thresholds. VAMP retired both and measures fraud and disputes together, with a lower effective tolerance for merchants that have problems in both columns.

The practical difference is that gaming the old system no longer works. A merchant that kept fraud low but ran hot on disputes - or used representment to win chargebacks while ignoring the underlying fraud - could pass VDMP or VFMP on a technicality. VAMP's combined ratio closes that gap.

It also shifts the reporting burden onto acquirers. Because Visa now scores the acquirer's whole portfolio, the acquirer has a direct financial incentive to police its merchants before Visa does. That's why the programme changes how PSPs behave, not just how Visa reports.

How do operators stay under the VAMP threshold?

The goal is to cut both halves of the ratio - fraud reports and disputes - while using Visa's own exclusions to keep counted events down. None of it is exotic; it's disciplined execution of things most operators half-do.

• Deploy RDR and pre-dispute resolution. Disputes settled through Rapid Dispute Resolution are excluded from the VAMP ratio. Automating refunds for low-value disputes can be cheaper than letting them count.
• Use Compelling Evidence 3.0. Fraud transactions that qualify under CE3.0 drop out of the count. It needs the transaction history and device data to back it up, so wire that into your dispute flow.
• Fix billing descriptors. A descriptor a player doesn't recognise is a chargeback waiting to happen. Clear, brand-matched billing descriptors cut friendly fraud at source.
• Push authentication with 3D Secure. Liability shift on authenticated transactions moves fraud off your ratio. See our guide to 3D Secure and SCA.
• Route intelligently across acquirers. Payment orchestration lets you spread volume so no single acquirer's portfolio ratio spikes because of your traffic.

Provider choice sits underneath all of this. An acquirer that genuinely understands gambling will help you manage the ratio rather than simply cut you when it rises. The iGamingPayments.ai directory lists PSPs and acquirers by region and vertical, and you can model what a lower dispute rate is worth with our approval rate calculator. The payments glossary defines the surrounding terms.

Frequently asked questions

What does VAMP stand for?

VAMP stands for the Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program. It monitors acquirers and their merchants for excessive fraud and disputes, and replaced the older Visa Dispute Monitoring Program and Visa Fraud Monitoring Program from 1 April 2025.

What is a good VAMP ratio?

For a merchant, the aim is to stay comfortably under the 1.5% excessive threshold that applies from April 2026, and well below it if you want no acquirer attention at all. Because the ratio combines fraud and disputes, a gambling operator should track both inputs separately and watch the combined figure monthly.

What happens if a merchant exceeds the VAMP threshold?

The merchant is flagged as excessive, Visa applies a per-dispute fee to counted disputes, and the acquirer is expected to put the merchant on a remediation plan. Persistent breaches can end in the acquirer offboarding the merchant, since the merchant's ratio is dragging down the acquirer's portfolio number.

Can I still win chargebacks under VAMP?

You can, but winning a dispute through representment doesn't remove it from the VAMP ratio the way an RDR resolution or a Compelling Evidence 3.0 qualification does. That's a shift from the old thinking, where a won chargeback was a clean result. Under VAMP, preventing or pre-resolving the dispute matters more than winning it later.

Does VAMP apply to Mastercard transactions?

No. VAMP is a Visa programme and covers Visa transactions only. Mastercard runs its own monitoring through its Excessive Chargeback Programme (ECP) and fraud programmes, with separate thresholds. Operators need to watch both schemes, because a book can be healthy on one and stressed on the other.

Is the VAMP enumeration ratio the same as the dispute ratio?

No. The enumeration ratio is a separate measure, set at 20%, aimed at card-testing and enumeration attacks where fraudsters probe stolen card numbers. It sits alongside the main VAMP dispute-and-fraud ratio rather than feeding into it.

When do the stricter VAMP thresholds take effect?

Visa phased them in. Excessive enforcement began on 1 October 2025, the acquirer above-standard threshold from 1 January 2026, and the tighter 1.5% merchant threshold from 1 April 2026. As of August 2026, the stricter numbers are all in force.

Find the right payment provider for your operation

Browse 342+ vetted PSPs, crypto processors, open banking providers and fraud vendors - filtered by region, vertical and payment method. Or run the numbers before your next PSP negotiation.