Understanding Mastercard Chargeback Reason Code 4847: Requested/Required Authorisation Not Obtained

Reason code 4847 signals that a transaction went through without the issuer’s formal approval. Mastercard believes the merchant failed to obtain the authorisation response that is required for most purchases. Below, we explain what it means, why it happens, and how businesses can protect revenue by fighting or preventing these disputes.

Key Takeaways

• What it means: Proof of authorisation is missing or was bypassed.  
• Causes: Technical faults, forced auths, expired cards, or true fraud.  
• How to respond: Supply the auth code. Show the transaction was covered by floor-limit rules. Prove a refund was posted.
• How to prevent: Use EMV terminals and CVV/AVS checks.

What is a Mastercard Reason Code 4847 Chargeback?

Note: Reason Code 4847 has now been discontinued and is included under Reason Code 4808. However, the advice below is still relevant to Reason Code 4808 chargebacks relating to "Requested/Required Authorisation Not Obtained".

Mastercard rules require every transaction to pass an authorisation request. This applies even in card-not-present settings. The issuer’s system stores an electronic “yes” or “no” in the form of an authorisation code. If that record is missing—or if the sale was pushed through after a “decline”—the issuer can reclaim the funds through a chargeback. Unlike codes that focus on goods or services, 4847 examines the payment step itself. 

The merchant has to show that the authorisation requirement was fulfilled, or that it wasn't required. This can occur when the charge is less than the permitted floor limit, or it is part of a recurring plan which has already been authorised. If the merchant can't prove either of those cases, the liability will stay with them, and the chargeback will stand.

Primary Causes for a Code 4847 Chargeback

Several underlying events can trigger this dispute. The most common cause is a straight processing error. A terminal may have gone offline and stored transactions for later batch submission, yet the merchant still shipped the goods. When the batch uploads, the issuer sees no matching approval and files a chargeback. Another frequent cause is the use of a forced authorisation code. Staff might phone for a voice referral, jot down the digits incorrectly, or, in rare cases, make up a code to complete a sale for a valued customer. 

Non-EMV terminals are another cause. If a chip card is swiped or keyed, the system can fall back to mag-stripe logic, stopping the mandatory online authorisation. Fraudsters intentionally seek stores with outdated hardware for that reason. Floor-limit misunderstandings also play a role. Some merchants treat low-value purchases as exempt, yet Mastercard’s rules tie the online floor limit to merchant category, not purchase size alone. Finally, friendly fraud sits in the background. A cardholder may claim no authorisation took place after seeing a charge they regret. Because issuers are liable only if they previously authorised the payment, they may file under 4847 rather than under an unauthorised purchase reason. Understanding each pathway helps diagnose root causes and draft stronger prevention steps.

Time Limit for Disputing a Mastercard Reason Code 4847 Chargeback

Mastercard sets firm windows for all parties. Issuers must submit the first chargeback within 90 calendar days of the settlement date. Acquirers then pass the dispute to the merchant. From that point, the merchant has 45 days to provide a rebuttal. Missing that window means the chargeback automatically stands. 

If the merchant replies on time but loses the first round, they may still pursue pre-arbitration and, finally, arbitration. However, it's worth bearing in mind that pursuing a case this far can mean substantial additional fees. Mastercard allows either party to request a second review within 45 days after the arbitration ruling if new facts emerge.

What 4847 Means for Consumers & Issuers

From a consumer's perspective, this code provides reassurance that their account cannot be charged without their bank's prior approval. Cardholders may dispute a line item they do not recognise, and the issuer will examine the authorisation file first. If it cannot find the matching code, it files 4847 to protect the customer’s balance. 

Issuers benefit as well. The chargeback process helps keep their fraud metrics low and signals to merchants that proper controls are essential. Still, issuers must follow strict rules, providing evidence that the auth data is absent rather than merely claiming the cardholder said, “I didn’t buy this.” In short, 4847 centres on process, not preference. When applied correctly, it upholds network integrity for both consumers and issuers.

What 4847 Means for Merchants

Receiving a Reason Code 4847 notice signals a potential gap in payment controls. Financially, the chargeback reverses the sale amount plus fees. Operationally, it can point to weak checkout flows or out-of-date terminals that invite fraud attempts. Excessive authorisation-related disputes may also raise your chargeback ratio. This may lead acquirers to increase processing costs or place you in a monitoring programme. The message is clear: tighten procedures or pay more to accept cards. 

Merchants can convert the setback into progress by auditing how staff handle declines, referrals, and fallback swipes. Make sure any voice approval is keyed exactly as supplied by the issuer and that the code is tied to the correct Transaction Identifier in the clearing file. In e-commerce, partner with a reliable gateway that automatically includes the auth code in each settlement record. Teaching frontline employees to avoid workarounds protects revenue far more than winning the odd representment later. A single technology update, such as deploying EMV or activating 3-D Secure, often cuts 4847 exposure dramatically.

How to Respond to a Code 4847 Chargeback

There are three possible proof points that can reverse a 4847 chargeback. The first is proving that authorisation did, in fact, occur. Present a copy of the auth code showing the amount, date, and six-digit code returned by the issuer. The second is providing evidence that an authorisation wasn't required in that specific case. If the sale qualifies for a floor limit or recurring exemption, refer to the scheme rule and attach receipts or the original consent form. Finally, merchants can argue that they already processed a refund to reverse the sale. In this case, supply the credit transaction record. Presenting clear, concise evidence within the allowed timeframe increases the likelihood of reversal and keeps unnecessary arbitration fees to a minimum.

Proactive Prevention: The Ultimate Defence

The best strategy is to avoid facing the dispute altogether. Adopt EMV-compliant hardware and block forced overrides except through tightly controlled voice auth procedures. Apply CVV, AVS, 3-D Secure, and velocity checks to card-not-present orders. Train staff to refuse transactions after a decline instead of “trying again” on a backup terminal. Monitor system logs daily so that you always catch failed or queued authorisations before settling a batch. Finally, try out chargeback alerts so you have sight of pending disputes before they convert to chargebacks.

‍