Gift card fraud has traditionally been discussed as a consumer problem: inspect the packaging, protect the PIN, keep the receipt and never send card numbers to a stranger. Those precautions still matter, but two U.S. states are now approaching the problem from another direction. New laws that took effect on October 1, 2026 in Connecticut and Maryland specifically address criminal conduct involving gift cards, including tampering, stolen redemption information and schemes designed to obtain card details fraudulently.
The changes are significant because modern gift card theft does not always resemble traditional shoplifting. A criminal may never need to spend the card physically or even leave a store carrying it. Access to a redemption number, altered packaging or information copied before a legitimate customer purchases the card can be enough to create a loss later. By writing those actions more explicitly into criminal law, states are adapting legal definitions to the way stored-value products are actually targeted.
For consumers using retail gift cards or general-use prepaid products, the new rules do not eliminate the need for caution. They do, however, show that lawmakers increasingly recognise the card’s information as something worth protecting alongside the piece of plastic itself.
Connecticut Now Defines Gift Card Crime More Directly
Connecticut’s new provision treats several forms of fraudulent gift card activity as a specific form of larceny. The legislation covers someone who, with intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or its redemption information without permission from the cardholder, issuer or seller. It also addresses altering or tampering with a card and schemes that use false or fraudulent representations to obtain a gift card or its information.
That wording matters because a gift card has two forms of value. There is the physical object purchased at a store, but there is also the information that allows someone to access the stored balance. If a criminal obtains a card number and redemption code, possession of the original plastic may no longer be necessary to steal the money.
Connecticut’s approach recognises both sides of the product. The state’s legislative summary specifically includes physical or virtual gift cards within the framework, reflecting a market in which stored value is increasingly delivered as codes and digital credentials rather than only as cards hanging on retail displays.
The punishment for larceny in Connecticut depends on the value of the property involved. The new law therefore places gift-card conduct inside an existing structure while defining more clearly which actions can constitute the offence.
Maryland Targets Both Gift Cards and Their Packaging
Maryland’s new law approaches the issue somewhat differently. Senate Bill 437 and its cross-filed House Bill 752 establish rules for valuing gift cards in theft cases and create the offence of gift card forgery. A person who intentionally alters or tampers with a gift card or its packaging with intent to defraud can now face a specific criminal charge. A conviction for gift card forgery can result in imprisonment for up to 18 months, a fine of up to $500, or both. The law took effect on October 1, 2026.
Including packaging is particularly notable. Many physical gift cards are sold inside sleeves or other packaging intended to conceal sensitive information until purchase. Criminal interference may therefore happen before a customer reaches the checkout, even when the card looks normal from a distance.
| Change | Connecticut | Maryland |
|---|---|---|
| Effective date | October 1, 2026 | October 1, 2026 |
| Stolen redemption information addressed | Yes | Theft valuation provisions apply |
| Card tampering addressed | Yes | Yes |
| Packaging tampering specifically addressed | Yes under applicable conduct | Yes |
| Fraudulent scheme to obtain card information | Covered | Related fraudulent conduct addressed through criminal law |
| Specific gift card forgery offence | Gift-card conduct treated as larceny | Yes |
| Maximum specific forgery penalty | Depends on applicable larceny level | Up to 18 months and/or $500 fine |
The two states have not created identical systems, but they are responding to the same underlying problem: the value attached to a gift card can be compromised before a legitimate buyer has any reason to suspect something is wrong.
Why the Redemption Code Can Matter More Than the Plastic
Consumers often think about card security in terms borrowed from credit and debit cards. If the card remains in a wallet, it feels safe. Gift cards complicate that assumption because possession of the information printed or concealed on the card may allow another person to use the balance remotely.
This is one reason regulators and consumer agencies repeatedly warn people not to send photographs of gift cards or reveal their numbers and PINs. The Federal Trade Commission has warned that scammers impersonating employers, businesses or other trusted contacts may instruct victims to buy cards and send the redemption information. Once those details are transferred, the criminal does not need the physical card.
Retail tampering creates another version of the same problem. A card can remain on a store display while sensitive details have already been copied. If a criminal is able to monitor or otherwise determine when money is loaded onto that card, the balance may be spent before the purchaser or recipient gets a chance to use it.
The new state laws are interesting because they focus not only on the eventual loss but also on some of the actions that make that loss possible. Unauthorised possession of redemption information, deliberate alteration and interference with packaging can become legally important before the consumer discovers an empty balance.
Federal Gift Card Protections Solve a Different Problem
It is important not to confuse the new criminal laws with existing federal consumer protections. Federal Regulation E already establishes rules covering gift certificates, store gift cards and general-use prepaid cards. Among other things, it generally prevents covered funds from expiring within five years and restricts dormancy, inactivity and service fees during the first year. Those rules address how legitimate gift card products can be structured and administered. They do not make fraud disappear.
This distinction explains why state legislation can still be relevant even when federal gift card regulation already exists. A consumer may have strong rights concerning expiration dates and fees while still being exposed to someone who steals the card’s credentials before it is used.
The regulatory layers therefore address different risks. Federal rules can determine what an issuer is allowed to do with a balance, while criminal laws can address what a fraudster does to obtain or manipulate that value. For cardholders, understanding that distinction helps explain why the protections printed in a card agreement are only one part of gift card security.
What Consumers Should Do Differently
The arrival of new criminal penalties does not require shoppers to completely change the way they use gift cards. It does reinforce the value of treating both the physical product and its redemption information as money.
Before purchasing a physical gift card, shoppers should examine the packaging and avoid products that appear opened, resealed, scratched or otherwise altered. After purchase, keeping the receipt can provide evidence of when and where the card was loaded if a problem later appears. Consumers should also use only official issuer channels to check a balance rather than following links received through unexpected messages or search advertisements of uncertain origin.
A few habits remain particularly useful:
- inspect both the card and packaging before paying;
- keep the purchase or activation receipt;
- never send the card number, PIN or a photograph of the redemption details to someone making an unexpected request;
- check the balance through the issuer’s official website or telephone number;
- report suspicious transactions or an unexpectedly empty balance quickly;
- when registration is available for a prepaid product, check whether registering provides additional lost-card or unauthorised-transaction protection.
These precautions apply differently depending on the product. A merchant-specific gift card and a network-branded prepaid Visa or Mastercard are not automatically governed by identical terms, protections or replacement policies, so consumers should still read the agreement attached to the particular card they purchase.
Gift Card Fraud Is Becoming a Legislative Issue, Not Just a Retail Problem
Connecticut and Maryland are not rewriting the entire U.S. gift card system. Their October 1 laws are state-level criminal measures, and they should not be interpreted as creating a new nationwide reimbursement guarantee for every consumer who loses a gift card balance.
What they do demonstrate is a change in how the problem is being defined. Gift card crime is no longer limited to someone physically stealing a loaded card from another person’s possession. Legislators are paying greater attention to redemption information, altered packaging and fraudulent schemes that exploit the gap between loading money onto a card and the legitimate owner spending it.
That evolution matters as gift cards become increasingly digital. A virtual card may not have packaging to tamper with at all, but its value still depends on credentials that can be copied, transferred or obtained through deception. Laws built around information rather than only physical objects are better suited to that reality.
For consumers, the practical lesson remains straightforward: protect the information attached to a prepaid balance as carefully as the card itself. The plastic may be what changes hands at the checkout, but the number and redemption credentials are often what actually control the money.
The New Laws Do Not Replace Basic Card Security
The October 1 changes in Connecticut and Maryland represent a meaningful response to the way gift card fraud has developed. Connecticut now explicitly covers fraudulent possession of cards or redemption information, tampering and deceptive schemes, while Maryland has created a gift card forgery offence that includes altering cards or their packaging.
Neither law can prevent every compromised card from reaching a consumer. Nor can criminal penalties guarantee that money already stolen will always be recovered. Their importance lies in giving law enforcement clearer tools for conduct that may previously have fitted awkwardly into traditional concepts of theft or forgery.
For gift card users, that makes 2026’s legislative changes worth watching without changing the basic rule of prepaid security. A gift card should be treated like stored money from the moment it is purchased, and the credentials attached to it deserve the same protection. As states adapt their laws to card tampering and stolen redemption data, the legal definition of gift card theft is beginning to catch up with the way the crime actually works.