If you read the FTC link above, you'll see that there are two separate reasons why you might initiate a chargeback:

1. Billing errors: This is the one most people are familiar with. It covers things such as non-receipt of goods, overbilling, double billing, use of a stolen credit card number, etc. You have 60 days from the date of the first statement that has the error, even if you pay for the charge before initiating the dispute. There are no dollar or distance limitations for this type of chargeback.

2. "Special rule for credit card purchases", as it's referred to by most banks. This is referred to as "unsatisfactory goods or services" on the FTC web site. This one has a $50 minimum and a geographic restriction (within 100 miles of your billing address, or anywhere in your home state). But, this type of chargeback has two interesting features:

- It's not for cases where there's a problem with the credit card billing, but where there's a problem with the goods or services themselves. That is, you actually received what you paid for, but there's a quality problem. There are no hard and fast rules here, and I have no idea how disputes made under this provision are actually resolved. The only time I tried to invoke such a chargeback, the front-line person at my bank (Citibank) had never even heard of this type of chargeback, even though by law it's described on the back of every credit card statement.

- It has no 60-day limitation, but only applies to the amount of the charge that you haven't paid off. That is, you could come back a year later with a quality problem, and if you still haven't paid off that item because you make only minimum payments, you could invoke a dispute under this rule. I have no idea how the bank keeps track of what purchases each payment applies to when you don't pay the account off in full each month. Perhaps there's some FTC rule on this, or perhaps each bank makes up its own policy. Again, you'd have to establish that a quality dispute a year later was reasonable for the facts and circumstances of your particular situation. In most cases, any claim for something that happened a year down the road that wasn't covered by a warranty probably would be unreasonable. But, perhaps you could have a situation like you bought something with a 10-year warranty, it breaks after a year even though you took good care of it, the company is now out of business so the warranty is now worthless, and you still haven't paid it off. I don't know.

I'd be interested to hear of anyone with experience on a "special rule" chargeback.