ML Interview Q Series: How would you design a refund policy balancing customer goodwill and company revenue at a food startup?

May 01, 2025

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

A policy for refunds in a food delivery setting needs to address both the financial impact on the company and the potential long-term value a satisfied customer can bring. Developing this policy can draw from data-driven insights (e.g., historical customer behavior, cost of refunds, churn rates, order frequency) as well as broader business goals (e.g., brand reputation, lifetime value of customers). Below is a detailed approach to formulating such a policy:

Connect with me on X (Twitter)

Data Collection and Feature Engineering

Historical Refund Data: Gather how much money was spent on refunds for each type of issue (food quality, late delivery, incorrect order, etc.). Identify patterns where refunds had a positive or negative impact on future orders.
Customer Segmentation: Segment customers based on order frequency, lifetime value (LTV), region, and number of complaints/refunds. A policy may be stricter for segments prone to abuse but more lenient for high-value loyal customers.
Outcome Metrics: Identify key outcome metrics such as reorder rate, time until next order, and net promoter score (NPS). These allow you to see how a refund influences future behavior and brand perception.

Balancing Goodwill vs. Revenue with an Expected Value Approach

When deciding on whether to refund or partially refund a customer, we want to look at both the short-term cost (the money refunded) and the long-term benefit (retaining a customer who will place future orders).

A simplified cost-benefit model for refunds can be represented by an expected profit or utility formula. Let p_churn_no_refund be the probability the customer will churn if a refund is not granted, and LTV be the estimated lifetime value of the customer if they remain active. Let cost_refund be the monetary cost of providing the refund. One might define an expected net benefit of providing a refund versus not providing a refund.

Where:

p_churn_no_refund is the probability the customer stops using the service if their refund request is denied.
LTV is the lifetime value of the customer (i.e., total expected profit from all future orders by the customer).
cost_refund is the cost the company must absorb if it chooses to give a refund.

After computing something akin to ExpectedNetBenefit, you can compare scenarios (full refund, partial refund, or no refund) and choose the option that yields the highest expected net benefit while maintaining good will. Adjustments can be made if the model indicates that certain types of complaints or certain customer segments have higher or lower probabilities of churn or have different LTV projections.

Policy Structuring

Tiered Refund Levels Define clear tiers for the refunds, such as full refund, partial refund, store credit, or coupon for future orders. Tiers may be triggered by severity of the issue or by the customer’s overall LTV.
Time Windows If the complaint is about delivery delays, a certain grace period might apply. For example, an order that arrives 30 minutes late might trigger a partial refund, while an order that arrives over an hour late might trigger a full refund.
Repeat Complaints If a customer repeatedly claims refunds for similar reasons, this might trigger a more thorough investigation or a stricter approach to mitigate abuse.
Automated vs. Manual Escalation Low-risk refunds (e.g., small order, loyal customer) could be automatically processed using rules derived from the data. More complex or large refunds could be escalated to human review.

Fraud Detection and Policy Abuse

A standardized policy is more transparent but can also be gamed if malicious users learn the triggers for easy refunds. To combat this, you can:

Create fraud detection models using features like frequency of refunds, unusual order patterns, or IP/device checks for multiple accounts.
Flag potential abuse cases for manual verification.
Institute per-customer or household refund limits based on consistent suspicious behavior.

Continuous Monitoring and A/B Testing

Implement A/B tests by offering different refund strategies to separate user groups. Compare reorder rates, LTV, brand sentiment, and cost of refunds across these groups to refine the policy.

Example of a Partial Implementation in Python

Below is a simplified illustration of how you might train a model that predicts the probability of churn if a refund is denied, which can help with policy decisions:

import pandas as pd
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression

# Suppose 'data' is a DataFrame with columns:
# ['customer_id', 'num_past_orders', 'avg_spend', 'complaint_severity', 'refund_given', 'churned']

# We'll filter only rows where a refund was denied or partially denied,
# to understand how many of them churned. This helps us model p_churn_no_refund.

df_churn = data[data['refund_given'] == 0]  # Cases where no refund was given

# Features could include past orders, average spend, complaint severity, etc.
X = df_churn[['num_past_orders', 'avg_spend', 'complaint_severity']]
y = df_churn['churned']  # 1 if churned, 0 if not

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

model = LogisticRegression()
model.fit(X_train, y_train)

# Predict the probability of churn if no refund is given
y_proba = model.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1]

# This probability can then be used inside the expected net benefit formula

By combining such probability estimates with a measure of each customer’s lifetime value, you can programmatically determine an optimal refund response.

Potential Follow-up Questions

How do you account for the possibility that customers might exaggerate their problems just to receive a refund?

You can establish a threshold for refunds based on historical patterns and detect anomalies. For instance, if a large portion of a customer’s orders end with “food quality issues,” it flags suspicious behavior. Further layers include machine learning-based fraud detection systems. Strictly limiting the number of refunds over a certain period or requiring additional documentation (e.g., photographs of faulty items) could also mitigate abuse.

How do you incorporate partial or coupon-based refunds into this policy?

You can compare scenarios:

Full Refund: Incur higher immediate cost but potentially solidify goodwill.
Partial Refund: Lower immediate cost but may not fully satisfy the customer.
Coupon for Next Order: Reduces upfront expenditure; also encourages a future order (ensuring the customer returns).

You can modify the expected net benefit formula by subtracting a reduced cost_refund or by factoring in the incremental revenue from future discount usage. Then, choose whichever scenario yields the best balance of cost and future customer retention.

How do you measure the success of the new standardized refund policy?

Some key performance metrics include:

Retention Rate: Compare how many customers remain active after an issue.
Reorder Frequency: Observe whether the rate of subsequent orders increases or decreases.
Net Promoter Score (NPS): Check how the policy affects public brand perception.
Refund Costs: Measure whether total refund spending goes up or down relative to the overall volume of orders.
Customer Lifetime Value Growth: Track whether the new policy actually leads to higher LTV across different segments.

Running continuous experiments (A/B tests or multi-armed bandits) helps ensure the policy is optimized over time and can adapt to changing customer behavior.

What happens if the refund policy negatively impacts profit margins?

If data suggests that the policy is too lenient and costs outweigh future gains, you can either (1) adjust thresholds and criteria for issuing refunds, (2) introduce more partial refunds or discount-based resolutions, or (3) enforce stricter verification for high-cost refund claims. Ongoing monitoring of profit margins alongside churn and satisfaction metrics ensures that the policy remains balanced.

How would you handle unique edge cases like delivery during severe weather or local outages?

During exceptional circumstances (e.g., a snowstorm, a major local event, or a system outage), factor in external variables. For instance, if deliveries are guaranteed to be late for everyone, you might automate partial refunds or coupon credits to all affected customers. This fosters goodwill despite uncontrollable delays. Collect data from these edge cases and analyze how it affects churn or reorder rates to refine policy guidelines for future rare events.

How do you ensure fairness and transparency to customers and employees?

Make the policy rules accessible to customers in clear terms. Provide them with an easily understandable explanation of refund eligibility.
Train customer support agents on the underlying data-driven logic so they can communicate reasons behind acceptance or denial of a refund.
Ensure consistent application of the policy across different regions and support channels to avoid confusion and distrust.

This combination of systematic data-driven modeling, targeted segmentation, fraud detection, and continuous experimentation helps arrive at a balanced and fair refund policy that preserves both customer goodwill and business profitability.

Below are additional follow-up questions

Could there be legal or consumer rights regulations that impact how refunds are processed?

Different regions have diverse consumer protection rules specifying when and how refunds must be offered (for instance, mandatory refunds for delayed or spoiled items in certain jurisdictions). You should become acquainted with these mandates to ensure the policy abides by local regulations. Non-compliance could lead to penalties, lawsuits, or reputational damage.