Fraudulent and Abusive Warranty Claims from Dealers and End Customers
Definition
Manufacturers face repeated attempts to claim warranty coverage for out-of-warranty products, misuse, or intentional damage, including serial-number swapping, false failure modes, and repeated returns for the same asset. Without strong validation, these claims are regularly approved.
Key Findings
- Financial Impact: 5–15% of warranty spend may be attributable to fraud or abuse in some manufacturing environments, amounting to hundreds of thousands to several million dollars annually for climate-tech OEMs.[2][3][4][8]
- Frequency: Daily
- Root Cause: PTC notes that in the absence of IoT data and integrated visibility, warranty operations rely on a partial view of claims, which can lead to intended or unintended fraud.[4] Detering Consulting emphasizes that robust, auditable claim validation and automation are needed to detect potentially fraudulent activity.[2] Wareconn highlights the need to analyze exceptions to avoid invalid or fraudulent warranty claims as a key dimension of warranty management.[3] ServiceTarget describes the importance of product-specific data fields (serial number, purchase date, failure mode) in validation; when missing, fraud becomes easier.[8]
Why This Matters
This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Climate Technology Product Manufacturing.
Affected Stakeholders
Warranty and fraud investigators, Dealer support and channel managers, Field service managers, Finance controllers for warranty spend
Deep Analysis (Premium)
Financial Impact
$100,000 to $350,000 annually from processing potentially fraudulent returns, unnecessary refurbishment, and inventory management costs • $100,000 to $400,000 annually from commercial customer false claims • $100,000 to $400,000 annually from processing fraudulent returns, refurbishing non-defective units, and inventory write-offs
Current Workarounds
Ad-hoc tracking in shared drives and WhatsApp groups for repeat offenders • CTO receives aggregate warranty cost reports, relies on installation coordinator feedback for utility fraud patterns, uses email to coordinate with finance on cost overruns, lacks real-time analytics on utility-specific claims • CTO receives email reports from field teams, reviews claims data in Excel pivot tables, uses anecdotal feedback from installation coordinators, lacks systematic approach to identifying high-risk dealers
Get Solutions for This Problem
Full report with actionable solutions
- Solutions for this specific pain
- Solutions for all 15 industry pains
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
Methodology & Sources
Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.
Related Business Risks
Paying Invalid or Non-Covered Warranty/RMA Claims Due to Poor Validation
Lost Recovery from Component/OEM Suppliers on Climate-Tech Product Failures
Excess Reverse-Logistics and Handling Costs for Returned Units
Excessive Manual Labor in Warranty Claim Processing
High Warranty Cost from Product Quality and Reliability Issues in Fielded Climate Assets
Slow Processing of Warranty Credits and Supplier Recoveries
Request Deep Analysis
🇺🇸 Be first to access this market's intelligence