Gift-related scams have quietly become one of the most persistent forms of consumer fraud in the U.S. Using close to 10,000 verified “gift” scam reports from the BBB Scam Tracker, a new report by Gourmet Gift Baskets reveals a high-loss pattern that rarely makes headlines but drains millions every year. Almost two-thirds of reports led to direct financial loss, a level of harm that positions gift scams among the most damaging categories in the BBB data.
Key Takeaways
- 63.4% of reports involved monetary loss.
- Total estimated consumer loss reached $4.71 million. Average victim loss was $742.91, small individually but large in aggregate.
- Five states dominate both report and loss volume: California, Texas, Ohio, Florida and New York.
Are Gift Scams Becoming More Common?
Scam activity consistently surges into the holidays each year, with a clear ramp in November–December and a spring lull. After rising through 2022 and 2023, 2024 set a high bar with elevated volumes across the year and another strong holiday peak.
In 2025, the pattern is intact. The year started softer, bottomed around April, and then rebounded into summer. July and August 2025 showed higher activity than the previous year. The 2025 holiday peak will likely be higher than last year, but may land below 2024.
What Was the Financial Impact of Gift Scams?
While average losses per case are lower than in classic high-value frauds, the share of victims with confirmed financial damage is striking. A substantial majority of reports include monetary loss, and even relatively modest individual thefts add up quickly across thousands of incidents.
- Out of 9,999 total records, 6,344 include confirmed financial losses, indicating widespread direct harm.
- Total capped losses come to $4,71 million, using a robust cap to limit distortion from extreme cases.
- Among victims who lost money, the average loss is 742.91 dollars, representing a meaningful hit at the household level.
- About 60.4% of all reports mention gift cards. This overwhelming prevalence underscores its role as the primary payment mechanism scammers demand.
Which States Are Losing the Most to Gift Scams?
California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, and New York are the most affected both in total reports and total loss, while smaller states like Alaska and Wisconsin show unusually high average losses per case. When adjusted for population, Midwest and Plains states stand out, revealing a broader nationwide exposure that extends beyond the biggest markets.
-
-
Top 5 by reports
-
California: 877 reports
-
Texas: 658 reports
-
Ohio: 644 reports
-
Florida: 605 reports
-
New York: 434 reports
Gift fraud does not rely on magnitude; it relies on familiarity. A small but persistent percentage of these scams involves convincing replicas of real shopping or communication channels. With more than half of victims suffering a financial hit, gift scams display one of the highest loss rates among all scam categories in the BBB dataset.
Methodology
Source: BB Scam Tracker data from https://www.bbb.org/scamtracker/lookupscam
Cleaning and standardization. We standardized state codes to full names (including DC). Non‑US and unknown locations were kept for global context but excluded from US‑only rankings. We built a robust loss-capped field to control outliers using the tighter of the 99th percentile or Q3 plus 3×IQR.
Metrics and views We recomputed KPIs on capped losses (total loss, number of victims with loss, average loss among victims). We produced yearly totals (capped and uncapped), monthly report counts (2022–2025), and a US‑only state table with population joins to calculate reports per 100k. Top‑5 lists were created by volume, average capped loss, and per‑capita. For keywords, we pulled Grand Total counts for Holiday, Gift Card, Gift, and Christmas and visualized them.
Limitations: Outlier capping reduces distortion but lowers totals relative to uncapped figures; for investigations requiring exact sums, use the uncapped series. Non‑US and unknown locations remain in global results but are excluded from US‑only rankings and per‑capita metrics.