Mastercard's authorization-failure code, chargeable regardless of whether the cardholder is contesting the underlying purchase.
Mastercard 4808 is not a consumer dispute. The cardholder is not necessarily complaining; the issuer is. The dispute says the transaction was settled without a valid authorization on file, or against an authorization that was expired, declined, or did not match the amount that posted. Mastercard treats this as a processing failure that bypasses the consumer-protection logic of the rest of the rulebook.
How the dispute actually arrives
The notification arrives from the acquirer in the same format as any other chargeback, but the body of the claim names an authorization defect rather than a cardholder grievance. The merchant has 45 days from receipt of the notification to respond. Miss the deadline and the dispute is closed against the merchant.
4808 is the Mastercard parallel to Visa 11.3 (No Authorization). The evidence picture is the same: the issuer is asking the merchant to produce the auth record that matches the settled amount, currency, and date, and to explain any discrepancy.
What the issuer is looking for
The issuer wants the authorization response in full: the approval code, the timestamp, the amount, the currency, and the merchant identifier. The settlement record must align line-by-line. If the amounts differ, Mastercard's tolerance rules apply, and the merchant must show the settlement was within the permitted variance or that an incremental authorization was obtained.
For card-on-file and recurring transactions, the original cardholder agreement matters as much as the auth record itself. An expired auth on a 13-month-old subscription is not the same dispute as a force-post on a single-transaction purchase. The agreement frames whether the merchant had a right to the funds even where the technical authorization defect is real.
Common scenarios merchants see
A subscription renewal where the original authorization expired and the merchant did not obtain a new one before the disputed charge. The fix is procedural — re-authorize on each cycle — but the case in front of the issuer turns on whether the merchant can show the recurring agreement plus a current auth on the disputed date.
A force-posted transaction where the issuer never approved the charge. Force-posts are rare on modern processors but not extinct. If a merchant force-posted, the case is typically not winnable.
A capture for a higher amount than the original authorization. Hotel and rental incidentals, restaurant tips, and shipping adjustments are the usual sources. Mastercard's tolerance rules permit some variance; the case turns on whether the merchant stayed inside it.
What this code is not
4808 is not a fraud claim, a consumer dispute, or a service-quality complaint. The cardholder may not even be aware the chargeback was filed. Treating this letter as if it were a 4837 or 4853, and building the case around delivery proof or cardholder identity, is the most common 4808 loss pattern, because the issuer is asking a narrower technical question.
Where this fits in our service
Mastercard 4808 letters are short, technical, and unforgiving. The case is won or lost on whether the merchant's authorization records match the settled amount, not on rhetorical framing. If you have just received one and are trying to assemble the auth record, you can start with a free first letter.
Official source: Mastercard rules. Last reviewed 2026-05-14.