You have 60 days from your credit card statement date to dispute a charge. After that, the protection disappears.

If you’ve ever spotted a charge you didn’t recognize and done nothing about it, here’s what you missed, and what to do next time.

What qualifies as a dispute

Not every complaint about a charge is the same thing. The Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) covers specific situations: unauthorized charges, charges for goods or services you didn’t receive, charges for something that arrived damaged or different from what was described, and billing errors.

CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATE CAP COULD REDUCE ACCESS FOR OVER 100 MILLION AMERICANS, ANALYSIS FINDS

Not every complaint about a charge is the same thing. (Getty Images)

What it doesn’t cover is buyer’s remorse. If you made a purchase, received what you ordered, and just changed your mind, that’s not a dispute. The distinction matters because issuers treat them differently from the start.

What happens when you file

When you contact your issuer to dispute a charge, they’re required to acknowledge it within 30 days and resolve it within two billing cycles, which in practice means within 60 to 90 days.

In most cases, the issuer will provisionally credit your account for the disputed amount while the investigation is open. You’re not paying for something you’re contesting. That’s a meaningful difference from how the same situation plays out with a debit card, where the money has already left your account and you’re trying to get it back.

TRUMP’S PROPOSED CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATE CAP COULD CURB ACCESS FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS: REPORT

You have 60 days from your credit card statement date to dispute a charge. (Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The issuer contacts the merchant

Once you file, your issuer initiates what’s called a chargeback: a formal request to the merchant’s bank to reverse the transaction. The merchant gets notified and has the opportunity to respond with documentation: proof of delivery, a signed receipt, records showing you agreed to the charge.

If the merchant doesn’t respond within the required window, the dispute typically resolves in your favor automatically. If they do respond, the issuer reviews both sides and makes a decision.

Most disputes that reach this stage go to the cardholder. Merchants know that fighting chargebacks costs time and fees regardless of the outcome, and many don’t contest smaller amounts.

TRUMP CALLS FOR 1-YEAR 10% CAP ON CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES

What can go wrong

Disputes get denied when the documentation favors the merchant, when the purchase falls outside the FCBA’s covered categories, or when you waited too long to file. Most issuers require you to dispute a charge within 60 days of the dated statement it appears on.

If you made a purchase, received what you ordered and just changed your mind, that’s not a dispute. (iStock)

There’s also a meaningful difference between a billing dispute and a fraud claim. If the charge is genuinely unauthorized, that’s a fraud case, not a billing dispute, and it gets handled differently. Most issuers have zero-liability policies for unauthorized charges, which means your exposure is $0 regardless of amount.

The thing worth knowing before you need it

Dispute rights are built into your credit card by law. But you have to use them within the window, and you have to be able to describe specifically why the charge qualifies.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Keep records: confirmation emails, screenshots of what you ordered, correspondence with the merchant. If a dispute reaches the documentation stage, those details are what wins it.

Motley Fool Money does not cover all offers on the market. Editorial content from Motley Fool Money is separate from The Motley Fool editorial content and is created by a different analyst team.The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

LOS ANGELES — As the 2026 NBA playoffs intensify, two generational superstars sit sidelined with significant injuries, forcing their teams to adapt on the fly. Luka Doncic’s Grade 2 hamstring strain with the Los Angeles Lakers and Victor Wembanyama’s concussion with the San Antonio Spurs raise the same urgent question: Whose absence is more damaging to their squad’s postseason hopes?

Doncic, acquired by the Lakers in a blockbuster trade with the Dallas Mavericks, suffered the injury April 2 in a blowout loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder. The Slovenian star has missed the end of the regular season and the opening round of the playoffs so far. Lakers coach JJ Redick has said Doncic is “out indefinitely” with no firm timeline, though he could begin on-court work soon and potentially target a return in the second round.

Despite the loss of their offensive engine — averaging around 30 points, eight assists and seven rebounds in recent seasons — the Lakers have thrived without him. They stormed to a 2-0 series lead over the Houston Rockets in the first round, with LeBron James, Marcus Smart, Luke Kennard and supporting cast stepping up in clutch moments. The team’s depth and experience have mitigated the blow, at least through the early series.

Wembanyama’s situation feels more precarious. The 7-foot-4 phenom exited Game 2 against the Portland Trail Blazers on April 21 after a scary fall, landing face-first on the hardwood following contact. Diagnosed with a concussion, he entered the NBA’s protocol and remains questionable for Game 3 on Friday in Portland. He logged just 12 minutes before exiting, as the Spurs dropped the contest to tie the series 1-1.

Concussion recovery follows strict guidelines: at least 48 hours before full participation testing, with gradual activity possible after 24 hours if symptoms do not worsen. Median NBA return time hovers around seven to nine days, making a Game 3 or even Game 4 return optimistic. Spurs coach Mitch Johnson has emphasized caution, prioritizing long-term health over rushing the franchise cornerstone.

Team Records Without Their Stars During the 2025-26 regular season, the Spurs posted a strong 50-14 mark with Wembanyama but went 12-6 without him — still competitive thanks to a deep young core featuring De’Aaron Fox, Stephon Castle and others. However, playoffs amplify the stakes. San Antonio finished with one of the West’s top seeds, but early results without Wemby highlight his irreplaceable two-way dominance.

Luka’s absence has historically hurt Dallas, but the Lakers’ supporting cast has proven more resilient so far. The Mavericks were 26-56 without him in prior contexts, underscoring his massive on-ball creation. Yet in Los Angeles, LeBron’s leadership and roster versatility have kept the ship steady through two playoff wins.

Impact on Offense and Defense Doncic’s injury removes a unique playmaking gravity. He orchestrates half-court sets like few others, drawing doubles and creating open looks. Without him, the Lakers lean more on isolation plays and LeBron’s facilitation. Their offense has dipped but remains functional, aided by strong three-point shooting from role players.

Wembanyama’s absence is multifaceted. He anchors the Spurs’ defense with elite rim protection and perimeter switching while stretching the floor on offense with 35+ point outbursts. His playoff debut in Game 1 featured a franchise-record 35 points. Losing that rim deterrence and scoring punch against a pesky Blazers team could prove decisive in a short series.

Broader Context and Long-Term Risks Doncic’s Grade 2 strain typically requires four to six weeks. He sought specialized treatment in Europe, a move aimed at accelerating recovery. Lakers insiders eye a possible return around early May, potentially for a second-round series. The team’s 2-0 lead provides breathing room.

Concussions carry unpredictable risks. Returning too soon heightens chances of second-impact syndrome or later lower-body injuries due to lingering balance or reaction deficits. Spurs medical staff will err on caution with their 22-year-old franchise pillar, who has already dealt with prior minor ailments this season.

Fan and League Reactions Social media buzzes with debate. Lakers fans celebrate the team’s resilience, crediting coaching and depth. Spurs supporters worry that an extended Wemby absence could lead to an early exit despite regular-season success. League-wide, both injuries underscore the physical toll of the modern NBA schedule and playoff intensity.

Analysts note the contrasting team constructions. The Lakers built a veteran-heavy group around stars, allowing better short-term injury absorption. San Antonio’s youth movement relies heavily on Wembanyama’s transcendent talent, making his health paramount for sustained contention.

Who’s Impact Is Greater? Early evidence suggests Wembanyama’s concussion is more immediately disruptive. The Spurs dropped Game 2 without him and face travel to Portland shorthanded. The Lakers, conversely, seized control of their series despite missing Doncic and Austin Reaves. Over a longer absence, however, Luka’s offensive gravity could weigh heavier if the Lakers advance deep.

Both teams emphasize patience. Redick and Johnson have echoed similar sentiments: health first, then performance. For contenders with championship aspirations, these absences test roster depth and coaching ingenuity.

As the series progress, updates on both stars will dominate headlines. Wembanyama traveled with the Spurs and showed positive early signs in protocol, but clearance remains uncertain. Doncic edges closer to on-court activity but stays sidelined for now.

The NBA postseason often hinges on availability. In this head-to-head injury showdown, Victor Wembanyama’s absence currently feels more crippling for San Antonio’s immediate hopes, while the Lakers have proven they can weather Luka Doncic’s storm — at least through the opening battles. The coming weeks will reveal whether these teams can sustain momentum or if the stars’ returns become necessary for survival.

Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream is entering a new phase of growth under CEO Jennifer Schuler, who says the 80-year-old brand is focused on balancing expansion with long-standing tradition.

Schuler, who was appointed to take the helm in March 2024, told FOX Business she is intentionally taking a measured approach as the Ohio-founded chain looks to grow. 

“I’ve heard people say, when you’re joining a new brand or business, don’t come in and cannonball in the pool and send splash waves,” Schuler told FOX Business. “Start by putting your toe in the water and getting a feel for it — and that’s especially true with hospitality brands and brands that are…80 years [old].”

COSTCO’S NEW BAKERY ITEM QUICKLY BECOMES LATEST CRAZE

Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream CEO Jennifer Schuler was appointed to take the helm in March 2024. (Fox News Digital)

Founded in 1945 by Alice Handel as a single neighborhood shop, the company built its reputation on handcrafted ice cream. Decades later, entrepreneur Lenny Fisher expanded the business through franchising, according to the company’s website.

Now, in what Schuler describes as its “third era,” Handel’s is focused on further scaling nationally while maintaining its core identity.

“We’re just stewards of it,” Schuler said. “… My job is to take what was true about it 80 years ago and make sure we’re carrying that forward with time.”

FDA ANNOUNCES RECALL OF FROZEN DESSERT PINTS OVER POSSIBLE ‘SMALL STONES’

An exterior view of a Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream location. (Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream)

The company has grown to roughly 175 locations, with franchising remaining central to its strategy. Still, Schuler emphasized that Handel’s has a highly selective approach.

“We have a very high bar for the franchise partners that we bring in and talk a lot about the values of the business and the vision we have for the business,” she said.

Schuler also noted that there is still significant room for expansion.

“There are a lot of exciting times ahead for the brand and a lot of potential to grow because there is so much white space,” she said. “Yet, you have this proven history of the brand that just kind of keeps on chugging.”

MCDONALD’S EXPANDS INTO SPECIALTY DRINKS WITH ‘DIRTY SODAS,’ REFRESHERS PUSH

Pints of Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream are shown in a variety of classic flavors. (Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream)

In a competitive dessert market, Handel’s is prioritizing consistency over trends.

“You’re not going to see us introduce, like, a fig and olive type of flavor. … I bet there are some brands out there that do it great — We’re not going to do that,” Schuler said. “…. We are going to do things that are very classic and deliver on those flavors very, very well.”

Schuler said her leadership approach was shaped in part by a year-long break after leaving Wetzel’s Pretzels, when she reflected on what she wanted in her next role.

Assorted flavors of Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream are displayed with toppings and serving utensils. (Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream)

“I wanted to be part of a brand that I thought could be special in a community — a gathering place in a world where there’s more disconnection,” she said.

That vision aligns with Handel’s identity, which Schuler believes sets it apart in the digital world.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

“Especially in times of uncertainty, when people are feeling uncertain about the stock market or global conflicts, we generally find that’s when the ice cream business is just as steady and strong as ever, because it’s the little pleasures in life that I think people seek out.”

While 13 of the 14 present in the latest list have taken a dip in their rankings, four companies — Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Petroleum, state-run Indian Oil Corp (IOC), realty major Unitech and housing loan giant HDFC — have completely moved out of the league.

The latest FT Global 500 list was published by the UK business daily Financial Times over this weekend, is based on the companies’ market capitalisation as on March 31, 2008. The previous rankings were based on December 2007-end figures.

Reliance Industries, flagship company of India’s biggest corporate house Mukesh Ambani group, is top ranked 80th in the latest list, topped by the US energy giant ExxonMobil.

Live Events

Except for tobacco-to-consumer goods major ITC, ranked 484th, all other Indian companies have seen their rankings decline from the previous list.

Together, the market value of these 14 firms has dropped by about $ 150 billion since December last year and currently stands at about $ 440 billion.

There were 17 Indian companies in the previous list and had a total market capitalisation of about $ 590 billion.

In the country-wise ranking based on total market cap of all their companies present in the list, India has been placed 15th. The US is at the top with 169 companies worth a total $ 9.6 trillion, followed by UK, China, France and Japan.

Live Events

Other countries ranked ahead of India include Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Hong Kong, Italy and Australia.
In terms of the number of companies present in the list, India and Russia are jointly ranked ninth after the US (169), the UK (35), Japan (39), France (31), China (25), Canada (24) and Germany (22). Among the Indian firms, RIL is followed by two state-run firms ONGC and NTPC at 148th and 206th positions respectively.

While RIL has slipped 15 positions from its 65th rank in the previous list, ONGC and NTPC have also moved down from their 115th and 163rd ranks previously.

Other Indian firms include Sunil Mittal-led telecom giant Bharti Airtel at 218th (down from 193), realty major DLF at 329th (down from 195) and Anil Ambani-led Reliance Comm at 350th position (down from 252).

However, ITC climbed six spots to the 484th place, even as its market cap fell to $ 19.38 billion from $ 20.8 billion previously.

Realty major DLF saw the steepest market value fall of $ 40.66 billion, followed by the country’s biggest private sector lender ICICI Bank with a plunge of $ 38.51 billion and Steel Authority of India ($ 35.46 billion).

RIL, the country’s most valued firm, saw its market cap falling by about $ 21 billion, dipping from about $ 105 billion to $ 82 billion in the latest list.

In the global list, ExxonMobil has replaced China’s PetroChina at the top, while US industrial conglomerate GE has retained its third position. Other firms in the top 10 include Gazprom, China Mobile, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Microsoft, AT&T, Royal Dutch Shell and P&G.

NEW YORK — As artificial intelligence reshapes the global economy, the battle among cloud computing giants Microsoft, Amazon and Alphabet’s Google Cloud is intensifying, with investors scrambling to pick the best stock for 2026 gains amid surging demand for data centers, AI infrastructure and enterprise software.

Microsoft’s Azure platform has narrowed the gap on market leader Amazon Web Services, while Google Cloud continues posting the fastest percentage growth. Yet with all three companies pouring billions into AI-related capital expenditures and reporting earnings the week of April 29, analysts say the winner for shareholders may hinge on execution, valuation and long-term AI monetization rather than raw market share.

As of early 2026, AWS holds roughly 31 percent of the global cloud infrastructure market, followed by Azure at 24 percent and Google Cloud at about 12 percent, according to multiple industry trackers. The trio controls roughly two-thirds of the worldwide market. AWS remains the default choice for startups and cloud-native workloads with its vast service catalog exceeding 200 offerings.

Azure, however, is growing fastest in absolute revenue terms and has gained ground with enterprises already locked into Microsoft 365, Windows and Copilot tools. In its fiscal second quarter ending December 2025, Azure and other cloud services revenue rose 39 percent year-over-year, contributing to overall cloud revenue of $51.5 billion.

Google Cloud, the smallest of the three, delivered the most eye-popping growth, jumping 48 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025 to $17.7 billion — its fastest pace in four years — fueled by demand for Gemini AI models and Vertex AI platform. Traffic-share data from Cloudflare showed Azure posting a 58 percent year-over-year gain in Q1 2026, outpacing rivals.

The AI boom is driving unprecedented capital spending. Amazon guided for about $200 billion in capex for 2026, much of it for AI infrastructure. Alphabet plans roughly $175 billion, while Microsoft has accelerated spending to support OpenAI integration and its own Azure AI services.

Wall Street remains bullish across the board but sees nuances. Microsoft stock, trading near $424 in late April, carries the highest analyst price-target upside and buy ratings among the trio, according to TipRanks data. Its forward price-to-earnings multiple of roughly 31 reflects strong enterprise moat and recurring revenue from long-term contracts.

Amazon shares around $264 trade at a forward P/E near 28, offering relative value. AWS growth accelerated to 24 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025 — its fastest in 13 quarters — as CEO Andy Jassy highlighted AI-driven demand. The company’s retail business provides diversification but also compresses overall margins compared with pure-play software peers.

Alphabet’s Google Cloud, while smaller, has won praise for cost efficiency and AI leadership. GOOGL shares near $344 have rallied strongly but analysts project more modest upside relative to Microsoft. Google Cloud’s operating margins have turned profitable, and its backlog grew sharply.

Stock performance in 2026 so far has been mixed. Microsoft has lagged the broader market year-to-date amid concerns over heavy AI spending, while Amazon and Alphabet have held up better. Yet longer-term charts show all three have delivered triple-digit returns over five years as cloud adoption accelerated.

Investors weighing the options must consider different strengths. Microsoft excels in hybrid cloud and enterprise digital transformation, leveraging its productivity suite to bundle Azure services. The company’s remaining performance obligations — a proxy for future revenue — surged 110 percent to $625 billion.

Amazon dominates in scale and ecosystem breadth. AWS powers everything from Netflix to NASA and continues adding high-margin AI services such as Bedrock and Trainium chips. Jassy has emphasized that AWS added more absolute revenue in 2025 than either rival.

Google Cloud appeals to data-heavy and AI-first workloads with strengths in Kubernetes, BigQuery analytics and custom Tensor Processing Units. Multi-cloud strategies now dominate 89 percent of enterprises, giving all three room to grow even as they compete head-to-head.

Risks abound. Skyrocketing capex could pressure free-cash-flow margins if AI returns take longer than expected. Geopolitical tensions, energy constraints for data centers and potential regulatory scrutiny over market concentration add uncertainty. Interest-rate sensitivity also lingers, though most economists expect cuts later in 2026.

Analysts at firms such as J.P. Morgan have raised price targets on Amazon, projecting AWS growth in the high-20s percent range through 2026. Microsoft receives the most “buy” recommendations, reflecting confidence in its diversified cloud-plus-software model. Google’s cloud momentum is real but its overall business remains advertising-heavy.

For long-term investors, Microsoft often emerges as the consensus favorite for 2026. Its Azure growth, OpenAI partnership and massive installed base provide a flywheel effect that many believe will translate into superior earnings visibility and margin expansion. Yet Amazon’s valuation and AWS leadership make it attractive for those seeking growth at a discount, while Google offers pure-play AI upside at a smaller base.

The cloud market itself shows no signs of slowing. Worldwide infrastructure services revenue hit $119 billion in the fourth quarter of 2025, up 30 percent, and analysts forecast continued double-digit expansion through the decade as AI workloads explode.

Corporate boards continue shifting budgets toward cloud and AI, with hybrid and multi-cloud approaches the norm. Flexera’s 2026 State of the Cloud report highlighted spending tiers where Google often wins smaller deals while Azure and AWS capture enterprise-scale contracts.

Dividend-minded investors favor Microsoft, which yields about 0.8 percent. Amazon and Alphabet remain focused on reinvestment and buybacks rather than payouts. All three companies trade at premiums to the broader market, underscoring expectations for outsized growth.

Looking ahead, the April 29 earnings reports from all three will be closely watched for updated capex guidance, AI revenue disclosure and cloud growth trajectories. Early indications suggest another strong quarter driven by generative AI, but any softening in backlog or margin pressure could spark volatility.

Ultimately, the “best” stock depends on portfolio goals. Growth-oriented investors may tilt toward Google Cloud’s momentum. Value seekers could prefer Amazon’s blend of cloud leadership and e-commerce scale. But for balanced exposure to enterprise cloud dominance, AI tailwinds and reliable cash generation, many Wall Street pros continue pointing to Microsoft as the standout pick for 2026.

The cloud titans are not standing still. Each is racing to build the infrastructure backbone of the AI era, and shareholders who choose wisely stand to benefit as digital transformation accelerates worldwide. With the market still in early innings, the real competition — and opportunity — is only beginning.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, but may initiate a beneficial Long position through a purchase of the stock, or the purchase of call options or similar derivatives in TDVG over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.