Eighteen percent of respondents whose costliest personal scam involved gift cards said they did not report it, against 11% across scam victims overall, in a PYMNTS Intelligence study published on September 22. The finding points to a blind spot in complaints reaching the industry. [S01]

PYMNTS Intelligence researches payments and consumer finance. Its study surveyed 9,524 U.S. consumers in July. Its detailed scam findings concern 1,913 people describing their most costly personal scam within the preceding five years. The accessible report does not disclose the gift-card subgroup's size or confidence interval. These are retrospective survey findings, not a count of this year's gift-card losses. [S01]

Reporting connects the sale to the response

Existing Federal Trade Commission guidance shows why a report can have operational value. The U.S. consumer protection agency directs victims to contact the gift-card company promptly, retain the card and receipt, request their money back and also report the scam to the FTC. Those are different channels with different purposes: the issuer receives a customer case, while the regulator receives a fraud report. [S02]

The FTC's standing guidance, dated July 2023, says Apple can freeze a gift-card balance if the money remains available. That condition matters. Reporting is not a promise of reimbursement, and an available balance is different from money that has already been spent. The agency advises people to report even when the scam did not happen recently. [S02]

An issuer's warning makes the timing problem concrete

Apple provides a useful example of the roles involved. Its gift cards purchase the company's own products and services, rather than functioning as a general means of paying government charges or household bills. Its support page directs suspected victims to Apple Support and warns that criminals who obtain redemption codes may spend the value before the customer reaches support or law enforcement. [S03]

That public explanation separates possession of the plastic card from control of its value. A customer can still hold the card after somebody else obtains the information needed to redeem it. Apple also describes scammers guiding buyers through the purchase and then demanding the redemption code. The retail sale and the subsequent deception are therefore distinct points in the incident. [S03]

The commercial issue is the handoff

For retailers, distributors and issuers, the business question is how easily a distressed customer reaches the party able to examine the card. A shop may be the first place a buyer returns, while the issuer's support team needs the card details and purchase evidence. In our analysis, that handoff deserves attention alongside checkout warnings: sending someone between organisations adds a service problem to the original fraud. The cited guidance does not establish how effectively any particular company's process works.

Complaint totals should consequently be read as reports received, rather than a complete picture of harm. The new survey supports that distinction without measuring any individual issuer's detection or recovery performance. [S01]