Marketplaces take the customer relationship and the dispute interface. They leave the chargeback liability with the seller. The structure is deliberate.
Sellers on Etsy, eBay, Amazon, and most third-party marketplaces operate under an asymmetry the platforms do not advertise. The customer relationship belongs to the marketplace, but the chargeback liability sits with the seller. When a dispute is filed, the seller's records of the order are partial (the marketplace owns the messaging, the address, the payment flow), the dispute interface is the marketplace's, the response window is set by the marketplace's internal cutoff rather than the network's, and the seller has limited visibility into what evidence the marketplace actually transmits on their behalf.
The structure is not accidental. Marketplaces price their value to the buyer on the promise of dispute protection, and the cost of delivering that promise has to land somewhere. They have chosen to land it on the seller because the seller is the only party whose continued participation can be conditioned on accepting the terms. The buyer can leave; the network can fine the marketplace; the seller has to take it.
For a seller doing meaningful volume through marketplaces, the practical effect is that the chargeback rate inside that channel runs higher than the same business on its own checkout would generate, and the effective win rate on representments runs lower. Both belong in the unit economics. Marketplace revenue should be discounted against the chargeback overhead, and the cases worth accepting on a marketplace are not the same cases worth accepting on a direct-to-consumer site.