Refund rules that actually work: what to grant, what to contest
Blanket-declining every refund is as wrong as ignoring them. A field guide to writing refund policy rules that protect revenue and your review score at the same time.
The instinct after your first refund wave is to contest everything. Resist it. The stores see your responses in aggregate, and customers you fight over $2.99 leave one-star reviews. The winning strategy is a rules ladder.
Grant fast where goodwill is cheap
Small purchase, zero usage, first refund ever? Grant it. It costs you a couple of dollars, the customer remembers the experience, and your contested-refund credibility improves for the cases that matter. A rule like `price < $5 AND usage == 0 AND prior_refunds == 0 → grant` handles this automatically.
Contest with evidence where consumption is real
The unsatisfied-after-heavy-usage pattern is where revenue leaks. Six days of daily usage followed by 'unsatisfied with purchase' deserves a decline preference backed by the usage curve. This is exactly the case consumption data exists for — and it's where automated evidence shines.
Always contest repeat refunders
Refund farming is real: the same account cycling purchase → consume → refund. Track lifetime refunds per user across your apps and harden the response at two or more. The stores weigh this history too; your evidence makes it visible.
Let the deadline never decide
Whatever your rules, the silent failure mode is missing the response window entirely. Make sure something — a system, not a person — is guaranteed to answer before Apple's 12 hours or Google's 24 run out.