Topic starter
11/07/2026 1:55 pm
TL;DR: Daily fraudulent order volume reaches its February peak on Valentine’s Day, 35 percent above the monthly average, while risk also rises for new customers and gift card abuse during the holiday rush, according to Riskified. The broader lesson is that seasonal commerce creates identity ambiguity that rules alone cannot resolve.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Riskified: “Three Valentine’s Day fraud patterns to watch for in 2026”.
By the numbers:
- The National Retail Federation predicts Valentine’s Day spending will reach a record $29.1 billion in 2026.
- Daily fraudulent order volume reaches its monthly high on February 14, 35 percent above the monthly average.
- Risk levels for new customers on February 14 are 8 percent higher than the average observed in the prior two weeks.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when fraud controls are too rules-based during seasonal shopping spikes?
A: Rules-based fraud controls lose accuracy when peak traffic changes the normal behaviour baseline.
Q: Why are gift cards a higher fraud risk than many physical goods?
A: Gift cards are easier to monetise quickly, require less fulfilment data, and often bypass shipping-based verification.
Q: How can retailers tell legitimate holiday shoppers from account takeover activity?
A: The strongest approach is to compare the transaction against the customer’s usual identity pattern, not just the item being bought.
Practitioner guidance
- Strengthen holiday identity scoring Blend device history, payment continuity, recipient-domain checks and prior account behaviour into seasonal risk scoring so that legitimate late buyers are not treated the same as synthetic or hijacked identities.
- Add gift card abuse controls Treat digital gift card purchases as a distinct cash-out path, with tighter review on newly changed recipient domains, proxy-linked sessions and account takeover indicators.
- Separate genuine surge traffic from takeover patterns Create holiday-specific rules that look for account age, session consistency and unusual recipient patterns rather than relying on basket size or speed alone.
Bottom line: Valentine’s Day commerce creates a predictable fraud window because urgency, gift cards and new-customer traffic make identity signals harder to interpret.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/07/2026 2:06 pm
Seasonal fraud is an identity ambiguity problem, not just a rules problem. Holiday spikes change the behavioural baseline so quickly that static thresholds lose fidelity. When fraud teams rely too heavily on order-level rules, they miss the broader identity context that separates genuine seasonal urgency from coordinated abuse. The practical conclusion is that detection has to move from isolated transaction review to relationship-aware identity analysis.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of companies reported that fraud losses were still increasing in 2025.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should fraud teams prioritise approval rates or tighter declines during holiday peaks?
A: They should optimise for both, but not with a single blunt threshold. Seasonal commerce creates a short window where overblocking damages revenue and customer trust, while underblocking invites abuse. The best balance comes from targeted controls that focus scrutiny on risky identity patterns and keep low-risk holiday shoppers moving through checkout.
👉 Read our full editorial: Valentine’s Day fraud spikes expose identity signals retailers miss