They describe the same problem — from different sides.
Both describe a situation where someone ends up with your money and has no legitimate reason to keep it. The difference is who's talking and what happens next.
What Is a Grift?
A grift is a scheme — large or small — where someone takes your money through dishonesty, manipulation, or by exploiting your trust. The word comes from the world of con artists and swindlers, but it doesn't require a dark alley or a fake identity. Modern grifts look like businesses.
They look like a gym employee who promises to cancel your billing and never does. A subscription that takes one click to start and a certified letter to stop. A company that acknowledges it overcharged you, sends back a fraction of what it owes, and then stops answering.
A grift doesn't require a criminal conviction. It doesn't require intent to defraud in the legal sense. It requires one thing: someone benefited from your trust, and you got less than what you were promised.
The word is informal. You won't find it in a statute. But every person who has been on the losing end of one knows exactly what it means.
What Is Unjust Enrichment?
Unjust enrichment is the legal doctrine that gives you a path to get your money back. It requires three elements:
If all three are true, the law requires restitution — the return of what was taken.1
Unjust enrichment does not ask whether the company meant to cheat you. It does not ask whether you signed a contract. It does not care about fine print. It asks one question: under these circumstances, is it just for them to keep your money?
If the answer is no, they owe it back.
How They're Different
A grift
is a description of behavior.
Unjust enrichment
is a legal claim.
You can be grifted and have no legal remedy — maybe the amount is too small to justify a lawsuit, or you can't prove what happened. And a company can be liable for unjust enrichment without anyone calling it a grift — maybe it was an honest billing error that they simply refused to fix.
But in the cases that matter most — where a company systematically collects money it shouldn't have, through practices designed to confuse, delay, or exhaust the consumer — both terms apply at the same time.
The grift is the experience. Unjust enrichment is the cause of action.
Where Fraud and Deceptive Practices Fit In
The path from grift to unjust enrichment often runs through other unlawful conduct:
These are distinct legal violations, each with their own elements and remedies. Fraud may open the door to punitive damages. Deceptive trade practices may carry statutory penalties and attorney fees. Dark patterns have drawn enforcement actions from the FTC and state attorneys general nationwide.
But unjust enrichment is the bottom line. It is the money sitting in the company's account that belongs in yours. The fraud is how they got it. The dark patterns are how they keep you from getting it back. The unjust enrichment is why they bother.
Why We Use the Word "Grift"
Because it's honest.
Legal terminology serves an important purpose — it gives courts a framework for deciding who owes what to whom. But it can also obscure what actually happened. "Unjust enrichment" sounds like an accounting error. "Negative option feature" sounds like a software setting.
What actually happened is that someone took your money through a system designed to make getting it back harder than giving up.
That's a grift.
This site exists to document grifts, connect them to the legal frameworks that make companies accountable, and give consumers the tools to fight back. The language of the law is how you win. The language of the people is how you tell the truth.
Sources & Legal Authority
Primary sources cited in this article
Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 (2011)
American Law Institute: "A person who is unjustly enriched at the expense of another is subject to liability in restitution." The leading doctrinal authority on unjust enrichment, recognized by courts in all 50 states.
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 8403
Federal law requiring clear disclosure, express consent before charging, and simple cancellation mechanisms for recurring billing.
FTC Policy on Negative Option Marketing (2021)
FTC guidance identifying "dark patterns" — deceptive designs that trick consumers into subscriptions — as existing law violations.
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.608
Prohibits unfair or deceptive trade conduct. Consumers may recover actual or $200 statutory damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
This content is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Standards vary by jurisdiction.