Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/07/2026 4:15 pm
TL;DR: Major regional differences in return frequency, social-media influence, and what shoppers consider acceptable make one-size-fits-all return policy and fraud controls unreliable, according to Riskified’s 2026 survey of 2,091 consumers across seven markets. The data shows fraud and ecommerce teams need market-specific thresholds, sharper communications, and models that reflect local behaviour rather than global averages.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Riskified: Rewriting the rules on returns
By the numbers:
- The report surveyed 2,091 consumers across seven markets and interviewed ten senior retail leaders at brands with revenues between $250 million and $10 billion.
- 70% of Chinese consumers return items frequently or very frequently.
- Over 60% of consumers globally say they would adjust their return behavior if they knew the real costs of returns.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams calibrate return-fraud controls across different markets?
A: Use regional baselines rather than a single global threshold.
Q: Why do generative AI tools matter in return and refund claims?
A: Generative AI can make claims more polished and persuasive, which weakens manual review methods that depend on tone, grammar, or narrative structure.
Q: What do ecommerce teams get wrong about return abuse?
A: They often treat return abuse as a universal behaviour problem instead of a market-specific governance problem.
Practitioner guidance
- Set market-specific return thresholds Build separate baselines for regions with different return frequencies, abuse patterns, and consumer tolerance levels.
- Reweight fraud review away from text quality Combine claim language with account history, transaction behaviour, refund timing, and item-level patterns so polished AI-assisted claims do not bypass detection.
- Tune monitoring for coordinated behaviour In markets where social platforms influence returns, look for clusters, repeat patterns, and shared tactics rather than treating elevated volume as purely individual behaviour.
What's in the full report
Riskified's full report covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Country-by-country consumer attitude breakdowns for the seven surveyed markets
- Retail leader interview findings on how brands are adjusting policy and enforcement
- Market-level examples of acceptable versus unacceptable return scenarios
- The underlying survey design and respondent mix for practitioners who need context
👉 Read Riskified's report on regional return abuse patterns and consumer behaviour →
Return abuse patterns differ by market. Are your controls calibrated?
Explore further
10/07/2026 4:18 pm
Global return policy suffers from a governance assumption that consumer behaviour is stable across markets. That assumption breaks when one region normalises frequent returns and another treats the same behaviour as exceptional. The result is not just inconsistent fraud detection, but inconsistent customer treatment. Practitioners should see market segmentation as a governance requirement, not a merchandising preference.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can organisations communicate stricter return policy without alienating customers?
A: Explain the real cost of returns, the behaviour the policy is trying to prevent, and why the rule is different in that market. When customers understand the rationale, they are more likely to see enforcement as fair rather than arbitrary. Transparency is part of the control, not just a support message.
👉 Read our full editorial: Regional return abuse shows why policy must track consumer behavior
