This is a different claim from an order that never came, and a weaker one.
Non-delivery is a billing error under federal law, and your card issuer has to investigate it. A complaint about the quality of something you accepted is not, which leaves you with card network rules instead of a legal right.
Those rules also changed. Since October 2024, Visa requires you to return the goods, or attempt to, before filing a not-as-described dispute. Nobody returns an opened vial.
And one question sits under all of it. To argue that something was not as described, you first have to show what was described. Research vendors describe almost nothing.
What exactly is wrong with it?
Four situations get bundled together and they are not the same claim.
The wrong compound
The label says one thing and the contents are something else. Or the vial that arrived is simply not the one you ordered. It is the strongest version of the claim and the hardest one to prove.
Short fill
A vial that looks half empty, or weighs less than it should. Lyophilised powder is deceptive here, because the same amount of material occupies very different volumes depending on how it dried, and a thin film across the bottom is normal.
No certificate of analysis, or one that does not match
The lot number on the document does not match the lot on your vial, or no document exists. Our COA guide covers why the lot number matters more than the purity figure.
Damaged or degraded on arrival
Cracked stopper, broken seal, cloudy contents, or a vial that arrived frozen. Our guides on cloudy vials and warm deliveries cover which of those actually indicate a problem, and several do not.
Only the first three are disputes. The fourth is often a question about shipping conditions, and both of those guides exist because most of what looks alarming on arrival is fine.
Can I get a refund for the wrong peptide?
The distinction is written into the law and it goes largely unremarked.
Under the federal rules on billing errors, goods not delivered as agreed are a billing error your issuer must investigate. The regulator's own commentary is explicit that this covers non-delivery, late delivery and delivery of the wrong quantity. It also states plainly that the provision does not apply to a dispute about the quality of goods the consumer accepted.[^1]
So the moment you accept a delivery, the statutory route narrows. What is left is the card network's own dispute process, a set of private rules and not a right.
Most people assume the reverse. Having something in your hand feels like a stronger position than having nothing, and legally it is the weaker one.
What if I did not pay by card?
Everything below assumes a card, because the dispute framework is a card framework. Reason codes, the 120-day window and the issuer investigating on your behalf all belong to that system.
Pay by Zelle, Cash App, Venmo or crypto and none of it exists. Those are push payments you authorised, there is no reason code for goods that arrived wrong, and no third party is obliged to look at your claim. Our guide on what to do when a vendor vanishes sets out what remains, which is very little.
That leaves two things worth doing anyway. Ask the vendor for a refund or replacement in writing, because a seller who wants repeat custom sometimes settles a small claim instead of losing one. And keep the evidence regardless, since a report about a misidentified product does not depend on getting your money back.
That is a thing to weigh at checkout, not afterwards. Every payment method except a card removes the machinery described below, and the removal is permanent.
Which dispute code applies
Visa runs separate dispute conditions for what people think of as one problem, and the choice matters because the evidence differs.
13.3, not as described or defective
The general case: goods that do not match the description, or that arrived damaged or defective. 120 days from the transaction date or from when you became aware, capped at 540 days from the transaction.[^2]
13.4, counterfeit merchandise
A separate condition. If the vial contains something other than what the label says it contains, that is closer to counterfeit than to a quality complaint.[^3]
13.5, misrepresentation
Covers a claim that the purchase was misrepresented, including false advertising.[^3] A stated purity figure that testing contradicts sits here more naturally than under 13.3.
One rule cuts across all of them. Visa's rules confirm that these disputes are not permitted if you state the transaction was fraudulent.[^4] You cannot claim you never authorised the charge and also claim the goods were wrong, so the accurate description is the one to use.
Do I have to return it before disputing?
Most people filing these disputes have not heard about this change.
Effective 19 October 2024, Visa requires cardholders to return, or at least attempt to return, the merchandise before requesting a 13.3 dispute, and where returning is not possible a valid reason has to be provided and documented.[^2]
Returning it means posting an opened vial of an unapproved compound back to a seller who may be overseas, on a route where the shipment itself is what regulators care about. Our legality guide covers why importing works the way it does.
The practical answer is the documented exception, and it turns on the vendor instead of on you. Visa's own rule language recognises a refusal to provide a return authorisation as a valid reason for not returning.[^4] So the email where the vendor ignores you, refuses an RMA, or tells you not to send it back is what your dispute rests on.
Ask for a return authorisation in writing, even if you have no intention of using it. Their answer, or their silence, is what makes the dispute filable.
What if only some of the vials are wrong?
Multi-vial orders are the norm, and the wrong thing is usually not the whole thing.
Dispute the portion, not the transaction. If two of five vials are short-filled, the claim is for those two. Disputing the full amount when most of the order was correct hands the vendor an easy rebuttal, because they can show that three of five arrived exactly as ordered and let the issuer draw its own conclusion about the other two.
Work out the per-unit price from the order confirmation and state the figure you are claiming. An issuer processing a partial dispute wants a number it can check against a receipt.
The exception is a shipment where the whole consignment is suspect for one reason, such as every vial arriving with the same lot number against a certificate for a different lot. That is one problem affecting everything, not five separate problems.
The evidence problem, and the arithmetic that goes with it
To show that a vial contained the wrong thing, you need it tested.
Independent analysis costs real money, usually more than the vial did. So the evidence that would win a dispute over a $60 order routinely costs more than $60, and that is the reason most of these are never pursued, and not any question about who was right.
That changes above a certain order size. A multi-vial order, or a compound at the expensive end, can justify testing, and a report from a named laboratory carries weight with an issuer that nothing else on this list does.
What you can do at no cost, and should do immediately:
Photograph everything before you touch it further. The vial, the label, the lot number, the seal, the packaging, the shipping label, and the vial beside the order confirmation in one frame.
Weigh it if you have a scale accurate to a hundredth of a gram, and weigh an unopened vial of the same product if you have one.
Screenshot the product page, the stated purity, the COA the vendor published, and the shipping policy. All of those can change, and one of them changing after you complain is itself a thing to have on record.
Keep the vial, unused, unbinned, and in your possession until the dispute is resolved.
What the vendor actually promised
This is where the situation departs from an ordinary consumer dispute.
A not-as-described claim rests on a description. For most research vendors the description is thin by design, and the label frequently says the product is not for human consumption, which is the whole basis of our guide on what research use only means.
So the claims worth building a dispute around are the specific, checkable ones. A stated purity figure. A stated quantity. A named compound. A lot number matching a published certificate.
The claims that will not carry a dispute are the vague ones. That it did not work, that you felt nothing, that the results were not what a review promised. Our guide on how long peptides take to work covers why the last of those is unanswerable even in principle.
The narrower your claim, the better it does. Not as described is a strong argument when the description contained a number and the number was wrong.
What to do, in order
Contact the vendor first, in writing, and be specific about which of the four situations you are in. Quality disputes expect you to have tried, which is another way they differ from non-delivery.
Ask for a return authorisation, and keep the answer.
File the dispute with the right code, using the accurate description of the problem. Our guide on what to do when a vendor vanishes covers the mechanics of filing and the deadlines, which are the same machinery pointed at a different claim.
Report it if the compound was misidentified. That is a product safety matter as much as a consumer complaint, and the FDA takes reports from the public.
Do not use the vial in the meantime. A dispute about contents is difficult to run on a vial that is now half empty, and the reason to stop is more immediate than that: something that is not what the label says is something nobody has any information about.
What to do with it afterwards
Whichever way the dispute goes, you end up holding a vial you should not use.
If the dispute succeeded, keep it until the window for the vendor to respond has closed, then dispose of it. If it failed, the reason you are not using it has not changed: a compound that may not be what the label says is one nobody has any information about.
Disposal is the same as for anything else in this category. The vial is glass and the needle is sharps, and our guide on where to inject covers the sharps rules, including the state variation and why loose needles never go in household waste.
Do not sell it on or pass it to somebody else. Whatever was wrong with it is still wrong with it. The next person has none of the order confirmation, the photographs, or any reason to be suspicious.
Where this stops being useful
Whether your specific vial is wrong. Short fill in particular is misread constantly, and lyophilised powder can look like almost nothing legitimately.
Whether your issuer will accept the claim. Network rules set the framework and individual banks apply them differently.
Whether testing is worth it for you, which is arithmetic only you can do, with the price of the analysis on one side and the value of the order on the other.
Common questions
Can I get a refund if the peptide was the wrong compound?
You can try, and the route is a card dispute instead of a statutory billing error, because you accepted the goods. The wrong compound is the strongest version of this claim and it usually needs testing to prove.
My vial looks half empty. Is that a short fill?
Usually not. Lyophilised powder occupies wildly different volumes depending on how it was dried, and a thin film at the bottom of the vial is normal. Weight is more informative than appearance.
Do I have to send it back before disputing?
Visa requires you to return or attempt to return before a not-as-described dispute. Where returning is not possible, a documented reason is required, and a vendor refusing a return authorisation is recognised as one, so ask in writing and keep the reply.
The vendor sent a COA with a different lot number. Is that a dispute?
One of the clearer versions of this claim, because it is specific and checkable. A certificate carrying a different lot number describes a different vial.
Can I dispute because it did not work?
No. That is not a not-as-described claim and no issuer treats it as one, because whether a compound worked is not something the vendor described or could have promised.
How long do I have?
Under Visa's rules, 120 days from the transaction date or from when you became aware of the problem, up to 540 days from the transaction.
Should I use it while the dispute is running?
No. It weakens the claim, and more importantly a compound that is not what the label says is one nobody has information about.
I paid by crypto. Can I dispute it?
No. There is no reason code, no issuer and no reversal. Ask the vendor for a refund in writing, keep the evidence, and report a misidentified product regardless. Our guide on vendor disappearances covers what little remains.
Only some of the vials were wrong. What do I claim?
The portion, not the whole transaction. Work out the per-unit price and claim that figure. Disputing the full amount when most of the order was correct gives the vendor an easy rebuttal.
What do I do with the vial once the dispute is over?
Do not use it and do not pass it on. Dispose of the glass and any needles the way our injection guide describes, which includes the state rules on sharps.
Is this the same as reporting the vendor?
No, and both are worth doing. A dispute recovers money. A report to the FDA is about a product that was misidentified, and those reports are what build an enforcement record.
Sources
[^1]: CFPB. Official interpretation of 12 CFR 1026.13, Billing Error Resolution. Regulatory text, read at source. Section 1026.13(a)(3) covers goods not accepted or not delivered as agreed, including late delivery and delivery of the wrong quantity, and states that it does not apply to disputes about the quality of goods the consumer accepted.
[^2]: Visa. Visa Rules, dispute condition 13.3, Not as Described or Defective Merchandise or Services. Network rules. Cardholder time limit of 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date or from becoming aware of the issue, not exceeding 540 days from the transaction date. Merchant response window 30 days. Effective 19 October 2024, cardholders are required to return or attempt to return merchandise before requesting a 13.3 dispute, and where the goods cannot be returned a valid reason must be provided and documented.
[^3]: Visa. Visa Rules, dispute conditions 13.4, Counterfeit Merchandise, and 13.5, Misrepresentation. Network rules. 13.4 covers counterfeit merchandise and 13.5 covers a claim that a purchased item or service was misrepresented, including alleged false advertising. Both sit alongside 13.3 in the consumer disputes group, and the distinction between them determines what evidence an issuer expects.
[^4]: Visa. Updates and Clarifications to Dispute Rule Language. Network rules document. Records that a merchant refusing to provide a return merchandise authorisation, or informing the cardholder not to return the merchandise, is recognised in the rule language. Also confirms that dispute conditions 13.3 and 13.7 are aligned with 13.1 so that disputes are not permitted where the cardholder states the transaction is fraudulent.