Real ICM dispute-management engagements — the challenge, what we actually did, and the measured result. Not composite examples, and not testimonials.
Alidrop operated a subscription-based model with elevated chargeback risk. The objective was to improve the dispute win rate while managing the inherent risk associated with subscription transactions.
ICM managed the chargeback/dispute process end to end and developed a more structured approach to dispute investigation, evidence preparation, and representment — focused on understanding the individual circumstances of each dispute and building stronger evidence, rather than submitting generic responses.
50% win ratio, achieved within six months for a high-risk subscription-based business. This is a historical result for this engagement, not a guaranteed outcome for every subscription merchant.
Structured, case-by-case evidence work — rather than templated responses — is what moved the win rate for a business model (subscriptions) that card networks generally treat as higher risk.
Spocket operated in a business environment where subscription transactions and eCommerce activity created significant exposure to disputes.
ICM provided ongoing chargeback management, dispute investigation, evidence preparation, and representment, with the objective of improving recovery performance while managing the merchant's ongoing dispute exposure.
Spocket is included here as verified ICM client experience in the subscription/eCommerce space. Specific performance metrics for this engagement are not yet published — this case study will be updated with measured results once confirmed.
ICM's dispute-management experience spans multiple subscription and eCommerce business models, not a single account in isolation.
As a dropshipping/eCommerce business, Sapience LLC saw chargeback outcomes vary significantly depending on the payment processor and the individual dispute environment.
ICM managed disputes across different payment-processing environments and adapted the evidence and representment approach according to the processor and the specific circumstances of each dispute.
ICM achieved win rates ranging from approximately 50% to 75%, with performance varying by payment processor. This range should not be read as a guaranteed result for every dispute or every processor — different processors produced different outcomes.
Processor-specific strategy matters. Treating every dispute the same way, regardless of which processor it runs through, leaves win rate on the table for dropshipping and other multi-processor eCommerce models.
Wow Pay Travels, an online travel/travel-payment business, initially had a significantly lower chargeback/dispute win rate.
ICM took a structured approach to dispute investigation, evidence preparation, and representment, with greater focus on the underlying transaction and the supporting evidence actually available for travel disputes.
Win rate improved from approximately 40% to almost 80% — roughly a doubling of the previous win-rate performance. This reflects this engagement specifically and should not be read as guaranteed for every dispute or every processor without additional supporting data.
Online travel disputes have their own evidence profile — itinerary, service delivery, cancellation terms — distinct from physical-goods eCommerce. A generic rebuttal template underperforms here; a travel-specific evidence approach roughly doubled the win rate in this case.
