Your payment processor is sitting on your money. Answer a short questionnaire about the processor, the amount, how long it has been held, the reason they gave, and the evidence you have. I will sort your situation into a practical bucket: try the processor's own process first, send an attorney demand letter, add an arbitration draft for leverage, or weigh full arbitration.
I send a demand on firm letterhead, framed on the processor's own reserve, settlement, suspension, and dispute-resolution sections, by certified mail and email, and review their first response. Many holds move once the matter leaves the support queue.
Attorney demand letter is a $575 flat fee. I confirm scope and economics before any work.If the hold is recent, the amount is modest, or the processor gave a real risk reason, a written attorney evaluation tells you where the terms put your funds, whether escalating makes sense, and the lower-cost steps to try first. Upload the hold notice and I will read it.
$240 written attorney evaluation. If it turns into a demand letter, that is the $575 flat fee.The assessment weighs the factors that actually decide whether escalating a held-funds dispute is worth the cost and effort. None of it is a prediction; it is a practical sort into one of four buckets so you can decide your next step.
| Bucket | Typical pattern | Practical step |
|---|---|---|
| Support-level issue | Small amount, recent hold, a valid risk reason or open info request, thin evidence. | Work the processor's own escalation path first; answer any information request in writing. |
| Demand letter worth considering | Meaningful amount, the hold is dragging, delivery evidence is decent, the stated reason is weak. | An attorney demand letter on letterhead, framed on the processor's own contract, often reroutes the matter. |
| Demand plus arbitration draft | Large amount, long hold, strong delivery evidence, a weak or absent reason, or a written escalation already ignored. | A demand paired with a prepared arbitration draft attached as leverage makes the threat specific and credible. |
| Weigh full arbitration | Large amount with strong evidence where the processor is stonewalling and the contract sends disputes to arbitration. | Evaluate the arbitration economics, including the Notice-of-Dispute step and any fee-shifting, as a separate engagement. |
This is a practical indicator only. The processor's own contract controls the dispute path, including any arbitration clause, Notice-of-Dispute requirement, fee provisions, and limitation on remedies. Arbitration economics turn on facts this tool does not capture. Filing or initiating arbitration and appearing as counsel of record is a separate engagement, quoted separately. Nothing here predicts whether any specific hold will be released.
It depends mostly on three things: how much is held, how long it has been held, and how strong your evidence is that the underlying orders were delivered and undisputed. This tool weighs those inputs against the reason the processor gave and sorts your situation into one of four practical buckets, from trying the processor's own process first, to an attorney demand letter, to a demand paired with an arbitration draft, to weighing full arbitration. It is an automated indicator based on your inputs, not legal advice and not a prediction of recovery.
Support and risk teams handle volume on a script. A demand letter on attorney letterhead, framed on the processor's own reserve, settlement, suspension, and dispute-resolution sections and sent by certified mail, routes the matter differently and signals that the next step is the contract's dispute process, often arbitration. That changes the cost calculus for the processor. It is not a guarantee, and a small hold with a valid risk reason and thin delivery evidence may not justify the cost of escalating.
The single most useful document is the hold, reserve, limitation, or account-closure notice itself, with the exact reason and date. After that: your account or transaction history showing the held balance, proof the orders were delivered and customers have not disputed, your refund and dispute data, and any prior messages with the processor's support or risk team. Strong delivery and low-dispute evidence is what moves a held-funds matter from a support issue toward a credible demand.
Most major processor agreements send disputes to arbitration and often require a written Notice of Dispute first. That clause is part of why a credible demand has leverage: it sets up a defined, costed path the processor would rather avoid for a routine hold. The clause also controls the economics, including any fee provisions and limits on remedies, so the actual terms in force when your account was opened or updated need to be read before anyone relies on them. This tool flags the pattern; it does not read your specific contract.
No. This is an automated practical indicator based only on the inputs you provide. It does not predict recovery, it does not value your claim, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The processor's contract controls the dispute path, arbitration economics turn on facts this tool does not capture, and outcomes vary. Treat the bucket as a starting point for a conversation, not as advice.
Related: the Stripe reserve calculator, the demand-letter ROI calculator, and all calculators.