A Fake Tracking ID (FTID) is a return and refund fraud tactic in which a bad actor manipulates shipping or return tracking information to falsely indicate that merchandise has been returned to a merchant, even though the original item was never received back. FTID schemes exploit gaps between carrier tracking events, merchant return workflows, and automated refund logic, making them especially costly for ecommerce businesses that rely on tracking-based refund approval.
For merchants, FTID represents a convergence of logistics abuse, refund fraud, and policy exploitation. For fraud prevention teams, it underscores why return verification cannot rely on tracking data alone.
NoFraud classifies FTID as a post-authorization, post-purchase fraud vector that often follows an otherwise legitimate transaction, making it harder to detect with traditional payment-only fraud tools. FTID frequently appears alongside other forms of return fraud and refund abuse.
Real-world example:
Everlane, a modern apparel brand, identified FTID fraud as a repeat return abuse pattern and now blocks $30K–$40K per month in FTID-driven losses using Yofi, a NoFraud Company.
→ Read the Everlane case study
Ecosystem Overview
FTID fraud exists at the intersection of several ecommerce systems:
- Carrier tracking infrastructure such as USPS package tracking, UPS shipment tracking, and FedEx tracking services
- Merchant return management systems and warehouse intake operations
- Customer service and refund automation workflows
- Fraud prevention and abuse monitoring platforms
Carrier tracking systems are designed to confirm shipment movement, not package contents or return integrity. That limitation creates an opportunity for tracking manipulation when merchants treat a scan event as equivalent to a valid return.
Industry reporting consistently shows that return fraud is a material contributor to retail losses. The National Retail Federation’s research on retail shrink regularly highlights the impact of fraudulent returns as ecommerce volumes grow.
Within the NoFraud and Yofi ecosystem:
- NoFraud helps merchants prevent fraud at checkout and before fulfillment.
- Yofi extends visibility into post-purchase behavior, helping identify refund abuse, return manipulation, and repeat exploitation patterns after delivery.
FTID lives in the post-purchase intelligence layer, where behavior and patterns often matter more than payment credentials alone.
Additional resources:
- Learn how NoFraud approaches return fraud and abuse prevention
- Read about the NoFraud and Yofi unified fraud and abuse platform
Common FTID Use Cases
FTID schemes tend to follow repeatable patterns across ecommerce verticals:
Tracking number reuse
A fraudster submits a tracking number from an unrelated shipment that already shows a completed delivery scan, exploiting refund workflows that rely solely on tracking confirmation.
Address or ZIP code manipulation
The return label is altered so the package is delivered to a nearby but incorrect address or postal zone, allowing the carrier system to mark the return as delivered without reaching the merchant’s facility. This behavior is closely related to package redirection scams.
Empty or low-value returns
An envelope or lightweight package is shipped to generate legitimate carrier scans while the original merchandise is retained.
Scan-based refund exploitation
Acceptance or in-transit scans are used to trigger automated refunds before final delivery or warehouse intake verification occurs.
FTID tactics are often paired with social engineering, such as repeated outreach to customer support to pressure agents into issuing refunds quickly.
Supporting Insight
Return fraud and refund abuse are widely documented as growing operational and margin risks for ecommerce. In practice, FTID risk increases when merchants:
- issue refunds automatically based on tracking events
- offer instant refunds at scale without intake verification
- lack cross-system visibility into customer behavior patterns
NoFraud resources that expand on these patterns and mitigation playbooks include the guide to nine common types of return fraud and an overview of the most popular playbooks used by return fraudsters.
External research supports the limitations of tracking-only workflows. The National Retail Security Survey outlines the financial impact of fraudulent returns, while carrier documentation from USPS, UPS, and FedEx clarifies that tracking events confirm movement, not contents. Industry analysis from Ravelin further explains refund abuse and returns fraud risks.
How Merchants Mitigate FTID Risk
Reducing FTID exposure requires layered controls and post-purchase intelligence rather than a single rule.
Operational controls include holding refunds until physical receipt when risk signals are present, using carrier-generated or merchant-controlled return labels, and applying intake checks such as weight and packaging consistency verification.
Policy and workflow controls focus on defining when refunds can be issued on scans versus on receipt, applying stricter verification for high-value items, and aligning fraud, support, and warehouse teams on FTID escalation criteria.
Behavioral intelligence measures include monitoring customers with abnormal return success rates and connecting transaction-level trust decisions with post-purchase outcomes to identify repeat abuse without penalizing legitimate buyers.
Summary
A Fake Tracking ID (FTID) is a sophisticated return fraud technique that exploits trust in carrier tracking systems to obtain refunds without returning merchandise. As ecommerce refund workflows become more automated, FTID risk increases unless merchants pair logistics data with behavioral intelligence and verification controls.
For ecommerce brands focused on sustainable growth, understanding and mitigating FTID is essential to protecting margins, reducing operational friction, and maintaining fair customer experiences.
