Payment providers are becoming less tolerant of risk, and card schemes have tightened enforcement around fraud, chargebacks, and monitoring thresholds. As a result, more merchants are finding themselves unexpectedly added to the MATCH list (Member Alert To Control High-Risk Merchants), Mastercard’s global blacklist
You may not even know what triggered this or how to prevent it next time. A MATCH listing is not a small operational inconvenience; it can shut down your ability to obtain merchant accounts globally and push your business into the high-risk category for years. Getting listed can mean months of searching for a replacement PSP, higher rolling reserves, reduced processing limits, and, in some cases, no access to card payments at all. The pressure has increased as acquirers face stricter oversight, and reports of MATCH use have risen across sectors such as subscription services, travel, digital goods, coaching programmes and financial services consultants.
To stay off MATCH in 2026, businesses need to understand not only Visa and Mastercard’s evolving rules but also how acquirers, payment facilitators, and emerging non-bank financial institutions interpret risk. This article brings together practical guidance, UK-specific context and lessons from recent cases to help merchants build a structure that is compliant, resilient and acceptable to payment partners.
In practice, MATCH is used not only for fraud but also for patterns suggesting weak governance, poor settlement discipline or unfair business models. Understanding those triggers is the first step.
The real triggers that get merchants listed on MATCH
Although Mastercard defines several formal MATCH codes, the most common underlying issues fall into a handful of behavioural patterns.
Excessive chargebacks and poor dispute ratios
A significant share of MATCH cases originates from unmanaged chargebacks. If ratios exceed scheme thresholds or appear to be trending upward without mitigation, acquirers may feel pressured to act. Many merchants underestimate how a single peak period can be interpreted as a structural weakness. Chargeback issues are particularly sensitive for subscription businesses, coaching merchants, ticketing, airlines, and merchants with marketing funnels built on aggressive conversions.
Suspicious or unauthorised transactions
Acquirers will not hesitate to terminate if they see repeated signs of card testing, inconsistent ticket sizes, mismatched descriptor information or velocity that does not align with declared business activity. Even legitimate spikes can raise alarms if the merchant has not proactively communicated expected volume changes or contractual events.
Misrepresentation of the business model
This remains one of the fastest paths to MATCH. Examples include merchants declaring a low-risk service while selling restricted products, offering trial-to-subscription funnels without transparent disclosures, or using offshore entities that do not have the substance or operational control they claim to have. Misrepresentation may also include routing unrelated businesses through the same Merchant ID.
Settlement instability and financial risk indicators
If a merchant fails to maintain liquidity for refunds and settlements, an acquirer may classify the business as a financial risk. Sudden refund delays, unpaid supplier obligations or inconsistent banking arrangements can trigger risk reviews. This is especially relevant for offshore companies using virtual IBANs or non-bank financial institutions, where settlement chains are fragile. A MATCH listing can follow if the acquirer concludes that customers or counterparties are at risk.
Breaches of scheme rules or legal obligations
Persistent non-compliance with Mastercard or Visa standards, failures in KYC/AML record keeping, or ignoring compliance requests can escalate quickly. Acquirers increasingly treat slow responses or incomplete documentation as risk events.
These triggers often overlap. A merchant with unclear onboarding documents, an offshore structure without proper substance, and rising chargebacks is viewed as a classic escalation candidate.
How to stay off MATCH in 2026: practical, evidence-based strategies?
Avoiding MATCH is not only about meeting technical thresholds. It is about showing acquirers and schemes that your business is predictable, controlled and transparent. Merchants who consistently demonstrate these qualities are far less likely to be de-risked.
Build a compliant operational footprint
Ensure the legal entity applying for the merchant account genuinely operates the business. Offshore entities must meet economic substance requirements, including decision-making, local management, and documented core activities. Weak or artificial structures remain a red flag. For UK-based entrepreneurs using international entities, alignment between contracts, bank accounts, and operational flows is essential.
Strengthen your chargeback resilience
Merchants should implement a full chargeback-prevention framework: clear descriptors, transparent checkout flows, fair refund policies, and timely customer support. Monitoring chargeback ratios weekly—not monthly—helps identify patterns early. If a peak is expected, communicate this to your acquirer in advance. Acquirers prefer a merchant who warns them early to one who hopes the spike goes unnoticed.
Maintain clean, consistent transaction behaviour
Use fraud tools, 3D Secure where appropriate, and strict velocity rules to reduce suspicious activity. Keep transaction size, frequency and geography in line with your declared business model. Any deviation should be justified and documented. Consistency is a sign of control; inconsistency is a sign of risk.
Stay transparent with your acquirer
Silence is a risk factor. Acquirers are more comfortable with merchants who communicate product launches, seasonal peaks, operational issues or upcoming campaigns. Even small updates help position you as a responsible partner rather than a compliance burden.
Ensure settlement security and liquidity
Your acquirer must trust that your business can meet its obligations. Maintain reserves for refunds and future settlements, avoid fragmented banking setups, and ensure customer funds flow through predictable, well-documented channels. Merchants using virtual IBANs or emerging NBFIs should know exactly how settlement chains work and have alternatives in case a provider experiences outages.
Keep compliance records updated and accessible
During onboarding and periodic reviews, acquirers often request shareholder documents, financial statements, website screenshots, marketing funnels, KYC policies, delivery evidence, or staff lists. Delays or contradictions raise suspicion. A well-organised compliance folder can reduce friction, establish trust, and shorten investigation cycles if issues arise.
Mistakes merchants make that lead straight to MATCH
Patterns from recent cases show several recurring mistakes:
– Overly optimistic onboarding declarations that do not match real operations
– A belief that acquirers will tolerate spikes if business is good overall
– Mixing different business models or verticals under one processing account
– Relying solely on offshore setups without proper governance or documentation
– Operating without a dedicated compliance or risk-monitoring function
-Treating acquirer audits as adversarial rather than collaborative
MATCH is rarely triggered by a single event. It is usually the result of multiple warning signs that build over time. Merchants who address early signals proactively tend to stay off the radar.
What to do if you fear a MATCH listing is imminent?
If you see signs of trouble—tightened settlement cycles, increased document requests, or warnings about ratios—take action before termination happens. Steps include:
– Preparing a remediation plan that addresses specific concerns
– Improving chargeback handling immediately, even if temporary measures are needed
– Providing clear financial statements and liquidity evidence
– Clarifying the business model and eliminating inconsistencies in documentation
– Revising contracts and restructuring operations if needed
Once an acquirer believes a merchant poses systemic risk, decisions move quickly. Acting early can prevent escalation to MATCH entirely.
The bottom line
Avoiding a MATCH listing in 2026 requires more than meeting basic thresholds. It demands operational discipline, transparent communication, and a structure that regulators, acquirers and card schemes can understand and trust. Merchants who invest in compliance, governance and stable settlement infrastructure are far more resilient—and far less likely to face sudden account terminations, frozen funds or long-term reputational damage.
If you want a full risk assessment of your current setup, or guidance on designing a structure that is acceptable to acquirers and compliant with 2026 scheme rules, Widelia can support you in building a safer and more bankable merchant profile – Feel free to book a complimentary call with our expert team.
For deeper industry insight, see our article: “High-Risk Merchants: Fintech vs Banks in 2026”
Disclaimer
Widelia and its affiliates do not provide tax, investment, legal, or accounting advice. Material on this page has been prepared for information purposes only, and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, tax, investment, legal or accounting advice. You should consult your own tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any transaction. Please consult Widelia’s disclaimer page for more information.
