How is UA06 different from UA05?

UA05 covers counterfeit card fraud where chip processing was skipped; UA06 covers lost-and-stolen card fraud where PIN verification was skipped. Both enforce the EMV liability shift, but the missing control differs: chip reading in UA05, PIN capability in UA06.

My terminal supports PIN but the transaction verified by signature. Am I liable?

Not automatically. If the card's own verification method list permitted signature for that transaction and your terminal honored it correctly, the liability shift argument weakens considerably. Submit the EMV verification results and your terminal capability records so Discover can see the verification was compliant.

Do no-PIN contactless payments expose me to UA06 chargebacks?

Low-value contactless transactions under network no-verification limits are generally protected when processed within those limits. Exposure arises when transactions above the limit complete without verification, or when terminal configuration misapplies the limits, so verify your contactless settings against Discover's current thresholds with your acquirer.

Discover · Fraud

Reason code UA06: Fraud - Chip and PIN Transaction

Fraud occurred on a chip card transaction that should have been verified by PIN, at a terminal that did not support PIN verification. It extends the EMV liability shift to lost-and-stolen card fraud: when a stolen chip-and-PIN card is used without PIN entry because the merchant's terminal could not process one, the fraud loss shifts to the merchant.

Issuer filing window

typically 120 days from the processing date

Merchant response window

typically 30 days to respond

Why UA06 chargebacks happen

A stolen chip card issued with PIN preference was used at a terminal that only supported signature verification.
The terminal's PIN pad was broken or disabled, so the transaction verified by signature or nothing.
Cardholder verification configuration on the terminal did not honor the card's PIN requirement.
A thief who could not know the PIN deliberately targeted merchants known to skip PIN verification.
The transaction bypassed cardholder verification entirely under a no-CVM limit that did not apply.

How to fight a UA06 chargeback

Submit the EMV transaction data showing PIN verification was performed, including the cardholder verification method results.
Prove your terminal supported PIN on the transaction date with acquirer configuration and certification records.
Show the card's verification method hierarchy did not require PIN for this transaction if signature or no-CVM was legitimately selected.
Provide the authorization approval and any issuer verification responses associated with the transaction.
If the terminal genuinely lacked PIN capability and the card was a stolen chip-and-PIN card, the liability shift stands; take the loss and upgrade the hardware rather than paying representment fees on an unwinnable case.

How to prevent UA06 chargebacks

Deploy terminals with working PIN pads and enable PIN as a supported cardholder verification method everywhere.
Honor the card's verification preference rather than configuring terminals to steer around PIN entry.
Test PIN pads in daily terminal checks and pull lanes with dead PIN pads from service.
Review your cardholder verification configuration with your acquirer after any terminal fleet update.
Watch for transactions completing without any cardholder verification and investigate the terminal configuration that allowed them.

Frequently asked questions

How is UA06 different from UA05?: UA05 covers counterfeit card fraud where chip processing was skipped; UA06 covers lost-and-stolen card fraud where PIN verification was skipped. Both enforce the EMV liability shift, but the missing control differs: chip reading in UA05, PIN capability in UA06.
My terminal supports PIN but the transaction verified by signature. Am I liable?: Not automatically. If the card's own verification method list permitted signature for that transaction and your terminal honored it correctly, the liability shift argument weakens considerably. Submit the EMV verification results and your terminal capability records so Discover can see the verification was compliant.
Do no-PIN contactless payments expose me to UA06 chargebacks?: Low-value contactless transactions under network no-verification limits are generally protected when processed within those limits. Exposure arises when transactions above the limit complete without verification, or when terminal configuration misapplies the limits, so verify your contactless settings against Discover's current thresholds with your acquirer.

Related Discover codes