A customer filed several claims of unauthorized transactions totaling more than $2,000. The transactions were thru Google with which she has recurring activity. She admitted to giving her debit card to a caretaker who runs occasional errands for her. In her written statement she identifies the caretaker and further states that it is her belief that the caretaker took a picture of her debit card information with her phone and began using it online after the card was returned. Can we deny the claims on the basis that the customer authorized the caretaker to perform certain transactions and the caretaker exceeded that authority even though the customer has the card in her possession? Our request for chargebacks was denied on the basis that the cardholder had contracts/prior undisputed recurring transactions with Google. Thoughts?

Once the card was returned to the cardholder, the caretaker's authority ended. Subsequent uses by the caretaker should be considered unauthorized EFTs, if you determine that the cardholder's statement of facts is correct.

That leaves you with the potential that the charges in question actually benefited the cardholder. That would be your only "out," in my opinion.

Thanks, John! And, yes, we have considered all that. I was really hoping that stealing the card information while it was in her (the caretaker's) possession would fall into the cardholder's liability arena since her intentions were to exceed the cardholder's authority all along.