Neurodiversity and Chargebacks: What Are We Missing?

Chargebacks are often treated as black-and-white events. The player requested a refund. The payment failed. The user is abusing the system.

But real-world behaviour is rarely that simple.

When reviewing chargebacks, I have seen a pattern that does not always get named. People who are not acting maliciously. People who are confused by unclear flows, overwhelmed by customer service scripts, or unsure how to self-advocate when something goes wrong.

This matters when we think about neurodiversity.

Many users process information differently. Some struggle with ambiguity. Some find it hard to speak on the phone. Others need time to review a situation in detail before they can explain what happened. If your chargeback process assumes every user will react the same way, you risk pushing away the people who genuinely needed help.

I am not saying you should approve every refund. But I am saying the systems we build to catch bad actors can also punish good users who do not fit the expected pattern.

So what can we do better?

We can review the language in our support templates.
We can offer more than one way to communicate.
We can build a flagging system that looks not only at risk but also at intent and context.
And we can train teams to recognise the difference between fraud and confusion.

Better chargeback management is not just about win rates. It is about trust, retention, and reducing avoidable churn. When we design with more minds in mind, we get better outcomes for everyone.