I previously worked in fraud/risk at a major ecommerce platform. On my biggest day I closed 60,000 accounts. In one day. I knew other agents who'd done 10x that.

The scale of this work is unfathomable to those who have only been on the consumer side of it.

#1 is doable but would destroy our ability to combat fraud. "Here's how not to get banned next time" is not an email anyone in this space would consider sending.

#2 is simply impossible. Fraudsters consume every available resource you can put into the appeals process. This is their full time job, they can afford to call repeatedly, all day long, until they find an agent they can trick. Regular users won't benefit.

#3 is what small claims court is already for. We should make this easier, I agree.

> I previously worked in fraud/risk at a major ecommerce platform. On my biggest day I closed 60,000 accounts. In one day. I knew other agents who'd done 10x that.

> The scale of this work is unfathomable to those who have only been on the consumer side of it.

> #1 is doable but would destroy our ability to combat fraud. "Here's how not to get banned next time" is not an email anyone in this space would consider sending.

Just imagine laws would work that way.

> #2 is simply impossible. Fraudsters consume every available resource you can put into the appeals process. This is their full time job, they can afford to call repeatedly, all day long, until they find an agent they can trick. Regular users won't benefit.

That argument doesn't pass the smell test. Apple makes more profits than the scammers whole revenue, so just from a resources standpoint Apple could starve them. You just need to make the process so it can't be easily automated (e.g. require going into an apple store with your ID)

> #3 is what small claims court is already for. We should make this easier, I agree.

So in #2 you say it would overwhelm the process and now your argument is that essentially the public should pay for the process?

If small claims courts can deal with the issues than why can't a trillion dollar company.

This is not what small claims court is for. You can go to small claims court and successfully convince a judge that Apple or Google or whoever owes you $500 for shutting down your account. You cannot go to small claims and get a court order that Apple must reinstate your account.

It's very interesting and helpful to get your insider's perspective on this. I believe that the issue cannot be understood by people sitting on the outside who have no idea about the nature and scale of the fraud attempts.

Still, from your perspective, do you have any opinion on this particular case, other than "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs"?

Saying #1 and #2 are not possible or not likely is not a good take, in a world where our digital accounts take more and more a central place in our daily lives. It may work for autocratic societies, it won't cut it for democratic ones: imagine if our legal systems were that irresponsible to us collectively and individually?

Why not introduce friction on both sides, like: 1/ just face to face, physical meeting? 2/ or a basic (paid, yet reasonable) insurance that account management doesn't happen over the shoulder?

If you don't have the resources to treat your customers like human beings instead of like cattle, you shouldn't be in the business.

Can you provide any insight into the logic of closing an account that tries to activate an already redeemed gift card?

I’ve tried to come up with some strawman explanation but I can’t see it.

How many of those 60,000 accounts had made ten of thousands of dollars of purchases over decades?

The situation is pretty dystopian, but as you point out I think most people upset about it are not willing to face the realities of the "80/20" (more like 99/1) split of fraud v.s. legitimate mistakes. Patrick McKenzie has a good article about the tiers of bank support[1] that makes the point that even though the experience of tiered support often sucks, it's essential to making these financial products widely available. Without the dystopian support structure you couldn't have things like widely available credit.

Most megacorps do suck - and also it's probably true that the lack of customer support is necessary to offer the products they offer at popular price points. People just don't wrap their heads around the scales involved, generally because the exact numbers are proprietary.

[1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/seeing-like-a-bank/

> #3 is what small claims court is already for. We should make this easier, I agree.

Small claims won't help you to reinstate the account. You _might_ get money for your phone back.

And a real court? You signed away that right. It's arbitration for you.

Yeah, I managed a major service back in the day and I can confirm all you say is absolutely correct (except maybe #3, but that's legal).

One thing I do not understand however is why wouldn't companies offer paid appeal process perhaps with refund in case the termination decision is indeed overturned. I would gladly pay $100 to have my Apple/Google/etc account properly reviewed in order to get it back once it is inevitably flagged by yet another AI. Seems like win-win all around.

Imagine if banks worked like that.. it's "difficult" to scale is not an argument .

These companies are critical to people's livelihood in 2025 and they should be treated at such. Many people rely on them for their life, they store sensitive information and control communication.

I'm of the opinion that if a business can't provide adequate support at scale, then it should either stay small or cease operation.

Dealing with fraud is your issue and part of your business, not citizens.

Your post reads like an admission to me that the system is broken. Real persons need real recourse, especially if an adverse action has major impact on their lives.

Could it be that fully automated payment processes are just so fundamentally vulnerable that their very existence needs to be questioned because of how overwhelmed they get with fraud attempts? I'm deliberately being controversial here for the sake of discussion.

isn't #2 a legal requirement in the EU?