Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:42 pm
TL;DR: Fifty-four percent of consumers say they feel guilt yet still commit policy abuse, underscoring that behavioural friction alone does not stop abuse and that merchants need better policy design and detection, according to Riskified. The real control problem is not customer remorse but the gap between policy intent and enforcement.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Riskified: Consumer attitudes toward policy abuse, an international pulse survey
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should merchants detect consumer policy abuse without blocking normal customers?
A: Use layered signals rather than a single denial rule.
Q: Why does guilt fail to stop policy abuse in retail environments?
A: Guilt is a weak control because abuse is often rationalised as low consequence or justified by price, convenience, or perceived unfairness.
Q: What do security and fraud teams get wrong about policy abuse?
A: They often treat it as a customer service nuisance instead of a governed risk pattern.
Practitioner guidance
- Map policy abuse to identity and entitlement signals Correlate returns, refunds, promotion use, device history, and account age so repeated abuse patterns are visible across sessions and channels.
- Set tiered policy thresholds for high-risk customers Apply stricter review or step-up checks when a customer repeatedly triggers exceptions, especially for high-value returns or refund requests.
- Unify fraud and customer policy rules Create one abuse taxonomy so fraud analysts, ecommerce teams, and customer service use the same definitions for suspicious entitlement behaviour.
What's in the full report
Riskified's full report covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Behavioral breakdowns of five policy abuse patterns across consumer journeys.
- US versus UK differences in policy abuse attitudes and tactics.
- Four suggested steps for reducing policy abuse in merchant environments.
- Survey framing and the report's broader set of consumer attitude findings.
👉 Read Riskified's report on consumer attitudes toward policy abuse →
Consumer policy abuse and fraud pressure: what merchants need to know?
Explore further
11/07/2026 9:08 pm
Consumer policy abuse is an identity problem disguised as a commerce problem. Merchants often treat returns and promotions as back-office policy issues, but the real weakness is the absence of durable customer reputation across the policy lifecycle. Once a customer account can repeatedly re-enter the same entitlement path, the policy itself becomes the attack surface. Practitioners should treat consumer abuse as entitlement governance, not just customer service friction.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations decide when to tighten return and refund controls?
A: Tighten controls when exception rates rise, abuse patterns repeat across linked accounts, or operational losses outpace legitimate customer needs. The best trigger is not a single complaint but evidence that policy rules are being systematically gamed.
👉 Read our full editorial: Consumer policy abuse is driven by guilt, not just opportunity
