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.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Riskified: “What return behavior looks like around the world”.
By the numbers:
- The report surveyed 2,091 consumers across seven markets and interviewed ten senior retail leaders.
- In China, 70% of consumers return items frequently or very frequently, compared with about 30% in the US.
- In China, 93% of consumers have encountered return-related content on social platforms, while 60% of US consumers have never seen it.
Key questions
Q: How should teams calibrate return-fraud controls across different markets?
A: Use regional baselines rather than a single global threshold.
Q: Why do return-abuse patterns create false positives when controls are too rigid?
A: Rigid controls ignore the fact that some markets naturally return more, accept different behaviors, and respond differently to policy.
Q: What signs suggest return abuse is becoming coordinated rather than individual?
A: Look for repeated claim language, shared tactics, sudden clusters of similar returns, and high exposure to return-related advice on social platforms.
Practitioner guidance
- Calibrate return thresholds by market Set review and restriction thresholds using regional baselines for return frequency, acceptable behavior, and local abuse patterns rather than a single global average.
- Segment fraud models by behavioural context Train and tune models separately for markets with different social-media exposure, claim styles, and tolerance for gray-area return behavior.
- Add coordination signals to abuse detection Look for repeated language, tactic reuse, and clustered claim patterns that suggest coordinated return abuse rather than isolated customer behavior.
Bottom line: Return abuse is not evenly distributed, so global policy settings can create the wrong outcome in both strict and permissive markets.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
10/07/2026 4:18 pm
Market-specific return governance is now the baseline, not the exception: return abuse cannot be managed correctly with a single global threshold when customer norms differ this sharply by country. The article shows that frequency, acceptability, and social amplification all vary by market, which means policy design and fraud scoring have to be localised. The practitioner conclusion is straightforward: global policy should set principles, while market-level controls set the actual decisioning boundary.
A question worth separating out:
A: Merchants should treat return abuse as a risk segmentation problem, not just a refund problem. Strong controls combine policy design, customer behavior signals, and order history review so genuine shoppers are not blocked unnecessarily. The goal is to spot patterns such as repeated coupon misuse, non-receipt claims, and wardrobing early enough to limit losses while preserving a smooth experience for low-risk customers.
👉 Read our full editorial: Regional return abuse shows why policy must track consumer behavior