What Is a Grifter? Meaning, and When Grifting Is Illegal

A grifter is someone who gets money through a swindle or a con. Merriam-Webster defines the verb grift as "to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game)," and Cambridge Dictionary defines a grifter as "someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people." Merriam-Webster adds that a grifter is a thief "of a particular sort": one who obtains "money or property by means of cleverness or deceit," and does "not usually resort to physical force or violence."

Grifting is slang, not the name of a criminal charge, so whether it is illegal depends on what the person actually did. Deceiving someone about a material fact to get their money or property is prosecuted as fraud, theft by deception, larceny by trick or false pretenses, for example federal wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Hype, salesmanship, honestly held opinions and a bad bargain are generally not what those laws punish: each fraud and theft-by-deception provision quoted on this page turns on a false representation, pretense or deception, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says it generally will not pursue "obviously exaggerated or puffing representations."

If you think you were grifted: contact the bank, card issuer or payment app you used right away and ask it to reverse the payment, then report it. Our guides on how to get money back after a scam and where to report a scam walk through each step.

Information last verified on October 6, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article explains the meaning of "grifter" and how United States law treats the conduct the word describes: the federal mail, wire and bank fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1344), 18 U.S.C. § 2314, three Supreme Court decisions on federal fraud, the FTC's 1983 Policy Statement on Deception, and examples from the New York, California, Texas, Oklahoma and Utah codes. It is not a 50-state survey; for your state, see the state guides on our scams and fraud laws hub. It does not cover laws outside the United States.

What does grifter mean?

Grifter: "someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people" (Cambridge Dictionary, which labels the word "mainly US" and "informal" and gives "con artist" as a synonym). Oxford Learner's Dictionaries defines a grifter as "a person who tricks people into giving them money, etc."

The root word is the verb grift. Merriam-Webster defines it as "to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game)," and, without an object, "to acquire money or property illicitly." A grifter is simply someone who grifts, and grifting is the activity.

The defining feature is the method. Merriam-Webster's note on the word says a grifter is a thief "of a particular sort: they illegally obtain money or property by means of cleverness or deceit, and do not usually resort to physical force or violence." It continues: "A grifter might be a pickpocket, a crooked gambler, a scammer, or a con artist."

None of these dictionaries describes grifter as a legal term. It is an everyday word for a kind of person, which is why the legal question has to be asked about the conduct instead.

Where the word comes from

Dictionaries trace the word to the early 1900s. Merriam-Webster gives the origin of the noun grift as "perhaps alteration of graft," dates the first known use of grift to 1902, and calls it a "murky term": "The most plausible etymology we have for the murky term is that grift is an early 20th century alteration of graft, a slightly older word which refers to the acquisition of money or property in dishonest or questionable ways." Oxford Learner's Dictionaries gives grifter's origin as "early 20th cent.: alteration of graft."

You will often see the word described as old carnival or circus slang. We could not confirm that origin in a dictionary we can cite, and Merriam-Webster itself calls the etymology murky, so treat the carnival story as unproven as an origin. Merriam-Webster does note that within a few years of 1902, grifter was "often being specified as the kind of swindler who works the sideshows in carnivals." What the definitions do show is the link to the confidence game: Merriam-Webster's own definition of grift uses a confidence game as its example.

Grifter, grafter and con artist

• Grafter is older. Merriam-Webster's usage note says grafter "came into use earlier, dating to the middle of the 19th century, initially with the primary meaning of 'thief.'" Graft also has unrelated meanings in gardening and medicine.
• Con artist is the closest synonym. Merriam-Webster defines a con artist, also called a "con man" or, in the US, a "confidence man," as "a person who tricks other people in order to get their money."
• Grifter is a little wider. Merriam-Webster's list puts the con artist alongside the pickpocket, the crooked gambler and the scammer, all people who take money by trickery instead of force.

How people use the word today

In current speech the word often works as a loose insult: in commentary and online arguments it is aimed at someone the speaker believes is cashing in on an audience, a cause or a trend. A federal court that considered the word in 1992 observed that "grifter" "unquestionably has a wide variety of connotations which largely depend on the context of the terms usage." Used that way, the word expresses a view about a person. It is not a finding that anyone committed a crime, which is the subject of the next section.

Is grifting illegal? Where a hustle becomes fraud

Grifting is illegal when the conduct behind it meets the elements of a fraud or theft offense. Prosecutors and courts do not ask whether someone is a grifter. They ask questions like the five below, and the answers differ between federal criminal law and a civil lawsuit for deceit.

The practical point: federal prosecutors do not have to prove the victim relied on the lie or lost money. They do have to prove a material lie, made as part of a scheme aimed at money or property. A victim who sues for damages has to show the harm.

Puffery and sales talk

The FTC's 1983 Policy Statement on Deception finds deception where "there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment." On materiality, "The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service."

Exaggeration has some room. The statement says: "The Commission generally will not pursue cases involving obviously exaggerated or puffing representations, i.e., those that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously." It sets a limit in the next breath: "Some exaggerated claims, however, may be taken seriously by consumers and are actionable." And it quotes an earlier FTC decision: "A seller has some latitude in puffing his goods, but he is not authorized to misrepresent them or to assign to them benefits they do not possess. Statements made for the purpose of deceiving prospective purchasers cannot properly be characterized as mere puffing."

This is the FTC's civil enforcement policy, not a criminal rule, but it draws the same line a reader is asking about: "best pizza in town" is hype; a false claim about what a product does is not.

Opinions

The same policy statement says the FTC generally will not bring cases based on "correctly stated opinion claims if consumers understand the source and limitations of the opinion." It adds: "Claims phrased as opinions are actionable, however, if they are not honestly held, if they misrepresent the qualifications of the holder or the basis of his opinion or if the recipient reasonably interprets them as implied statements of fact."

Promises that are never meant to be kept

A broken promise is not automatically a crime, but a promise made with no intention of keeping it can be. New York's larceny statute covers obtaining property by "false promise," where the person "does not intend to engage in such conduct," and adds a safeguard: intent "may not be established by or inferred from the fact alone that such promise was not performed" (N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05(2)(d)). Texas includes "promising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed," again with the rule that failure to perform alone "is not sufficient proof" (Tex. Penal Code § 31.01(1)(E)). California's civil deceit statute lists "A promise, made without any intention of performing it" (Cal. Civ. Code § 1710(4)).

A bad deal, honestly sold

Each fraud and theft-by-deception law quoted on this page turns on a false representation, pretense or deception. A high price or a disappointing purchase, with nothing false said about it, is not what those laws describe. Price itself is a separate subject: some states have price-gouging laws, which this page does not cover.

What three Supreme Court cases mean for you

• Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999). A unanimous Court held "that materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes." It also said the common-law requirements of "justifiable reliance" and "damages" "plainly have no place in the federal fraud statutes." For a reader: a trivial lie is not federal fraud, but a material one can be even if the target saw through it or lost nothing.
• Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023). The Court unanimously held that "the right to valuable economic information needed to make discretionary economic decisions is not a traditional property interest," so a "right-to-control" theory "cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes." The federal fraud statutes protect money or property. Deceiving someone out of information alone is not enough; the scheme must aim at money or property.
• Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). This is the answer to "but they got something for their money." The contractor's company "performed the painting projects to PennDOT's satisfaction," yet the Court affirmed the wire fraud conviction because it won the contracts by falsely claiming to use a disadvantaged-business supplier. The syllabus summarizes the holding: "A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss." The opinion keeps two limits: "No matter the underlying theory of fraud, §1343 requires that 'money or property' have been an object of the fraudster's scheme," and materiality is "the principled basis for distinguishing everyday misstatements from actionable fraud." The Court did not decide what exactly makes a lie material, because the defendants had not contested it, and the case involved a government contract rather than a consumer sale.

Which laws apply to grifting

Federal fraud statutes

Many grifts today run over phones, texts, social media and payment apps, and wire fraud, or a conspiracy to commit it, is a charge in each federal case below. Its core text reads:

"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." (18 U.S.C. § 1343)

Federal civil law reaches deceptive business practices too. Section 5 of the FTC Act declares "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" unlawful (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)), and the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 437) governs sellers of business opportunities. Those are civil enforcement tools, not criminal charges.

State theft by deception, false pretenses and "confidence game" laws

States charge the same conduct under their own codes, usually as a form of theft graded by the amount taken. A few still use the old name for the con itself. These are examples, not a complete list:

• New York. Larceny includes "common law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or obtaining property by false pretenses" (N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05(2)(a)). Petit larceny is a class A misdemeanor (§ 155.25); grand larceny in the fourth degree, for property that "exceeds one thousand dollars," is a class E felony (§ 155.30); in the third degree, over three thousand dollars, a class D felony (§ 155.35). New York also has a street-con offense, fraudulent accosting: "A person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he accosts a person in a public place with intent to defraud him of money or other property by means of a trick, swindle or confidence game" (§ 165.30), a class A misdemeanor.
• California. Theft includes anyone "who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property" (Cal. Penal Code § 484(a)). Obtaining property by false pretenses "is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained" (§ 532(a)), and theft of property worth more than $950 is grand theft (§ 487(a)).
• Texas. Theft is unlawfully appropriating property "with intent to deprive the owner of property" (Tex. Penal Code § 31.03(a)), and consent is not effective if "induced by deception or coercion" (§ 31.01(3)(A)). Grades run by value, from a Class C misdemeanor for less than $100 up through felony grades. Our text of the Texas sections comes from our statute library's copy of the official Texas statutes site, retrieved in July 2026.
• Oklahoma. 21 O.S. § 1541.1 covers anyone who, "with intent to cheat and defraud," obtains or tries to obtain money or property worth less than $1,000 "by means or by use of any trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation or statement or pretense, or by any other means or instruments or device commonly called the "confidence game,"" a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $1,000 or up to one year in county jail. Section 1541.2 makes $1,000 or more a felony; under the version in effect since January 1, 2026 (Laws 2025, c. 486), it is a Class D3 felony under $2,500, a Class D1 felony from $2,500 to under $15,000, and a Class C2 felony at $15,000 or more. Separately, 21 O.S. § 954 reaches anyone who deals, plays or practices "three-card monte, or any other swindle or confidence game."
• Utah. "An actor commits obtaining a benefit from a confidence game if the actor knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain from another individual money or property by any means, instrument, or device commonly referred to as a confidence game" (Utah Code § 76-9-1410). It is a second degree felony at $5,000 or more, a third degree felony from $1,500 to less than $5,000, a class A misdemeanor from $500 to less than $1,500, and a class B misdemeanor under $500. Our text comes from our statute library's copy of the official Utah Code, retrieved in July 2026.

For your own state's theft, fraud and consumer protection laws, open the state guides listed on our scams and fraud laws hub.

Common grifts, and where we cover them

Most grifts have a scam-type name and a full guide on this site. Use the guide for warning signs, reporting and money-back steps.

Other classic cons have their own guides too: family emergency and grandparent scams, sweepstakes and lottery scams, government impersonation scams and money mule and fake check scams. A few grifts do not have a dedicated guide yet, so they are covered here.

The pigeon drop and other street cons

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office describes the pigeon drop this way: "con artists befriend victims in public and claim they have found money in a bag, envelope or handkerchief and offer to split the proceeds. They then ask seniors for "good faith" money to demonstrate their commitment to sharing the funds." Its advice: "Do not give anything to a stranger as an indication of "good faith"."

In a 2016 Los Angeles County case, the office reported that one defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of grand theft from an elder and attempted theft counts, and was sentenced to more than five years in local custody; a second defendant was found guilty of grand theft from an elder and attempted theft counts and sentenced to six years and six months in prison. The victims included a 73-year-old who lost $7,000 and an 89-year-old who lost $10,000; in a third attempt, on an 84-year-old, "a bank teller thought something was amiss." New York's fraudulent accosting law, above, is written for exactly this kind of approach in a public place. Older adults are frequent targets; see our elder fraud guide.

Business opportunity and coaching schemes

The FTC's Business Opportunity Rule defines a business opportunity as "a commercial arrangement in which: (1) A seller solicits a prospective purchaser to enter into a new business; and (2) The prospective purchaser makes a required payment," where the seller promises certain help, such as providing "outlets, accounts, or customers, including, but not limited to, Internet outlets, accounts, or customers." Under 16 C.F.R. § 437.4, it is a violation of the rule and of Section 5 of the FTC Act for the seller to "Make any earnings claim to a prospective purchaser, unless the seller: (1) Has a reasonable basis for its claim at the time the claim is made," along with other conditions.

The FTC's consumer guidance says that if you are buying into a business opportunity, the seller must give you a "1-page disclosure document" that must "tell you about any lawsuits against the seller," "tell you if the seller has a cancellation or refund policy" and "give you a list of references," plus an earnings claim statement if the seller makes earnings claims. "If the seller says anything that contradicts what's in their disclosure document or earnings claim statement, that's a sign of a shady operation that you should steer clear of."

Two recent FTC actions show what these grifts look like. These are civil FTC cases settled or announced as proposed settlements, not criminal convictions:

• Click Profit. In its August 2025 announcement of a proposed settlement, the FTC said that, according to its complaint, the operators "made false and unsubstantiated claims about potential earnings that rarely, if ever materialized," "falsely claimed to use advanced artificial intelligence and have exclusive brand partnerships with well-known suppliers, such as Nike and Disney," and "used illegal contract clauses to suppress truthful negative reviews." Under the proposed settlement, the operators "will be permanently banned from the industry."
• Ecommerce Empire Builders. The FTC's May 2025 release says its complaint alleged that the company "offered training programs that cost nearly $2,000, as well as "done for you" online storefronts that cost consumers as much as $35,000," and "promised consumers profits of $10,000 each month." The order "permanently bans them from selling business opportunities of any kind."

Civil cases can turn criminal. The FTC told Congress in March 2026 that after it sued the operators of "8 Figure Dream Lifestyle LLC" in 2019 over deceptive earnings claims, "three of the ringleaders were subsequently criminally prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado." That case is described below.

Fake heirs and "long-lost relative" letters

The FTC warns about messages claiming you are owed a long-lost relative's life insurance policy or inheritance, often from someone posing as a lawyer. Its answer is that the "lawyer" is a scammer, and "that life insurance policy or inheritance? It doesn't exist at all." Its rule: "Never send money or information to a stranger who promises big rewards." Our sweepstakes and lottery scams guide covers the same pay-to-collect pattern.

Influencer and social media product grifts

The FTC's April 2026 data release found that "more than 40% of people who lost money to a scam on social media" reported ordering "something they saw in a social media ad," and that other investment scammers "created WhatsApp groups full of "successful investors" sharing fake testimonials." Its earlier guidance on money-making pitches warns: "Success stories and testimonials might not be true or typical." When a product or course is sold through false claims about what it does or what buyers will earn, the fraud and deception rules above apply whoever is doing the selling.

Real cases: what grifts get charged as

The word grifter does not appear in any of these charges. Each case below comes from an official Justice Department release, and each was resolved by a guilty plea or a sentence on the date stated.

• The "Paying It Forward" GoFundMe (D.N.J.). The campaign claimed a homeless man had spent his last $20 to help a stranded driver. It "raised approximately $400,000 from more than 14,000 donors in less than three weeks." The U.S. Attorney's Office stated: "In reality, McClure never ran out of gas and Bobbitt never spent his last $20 for her." Katelyn McClure pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and in July 2022 was sentenced to "one year and one day in prison," three years of supervised release and $400,000 in restitution. Mark D'Amico pleaded guilty and was sentenced in April 2022 to 27 months in prison. Johnny Bobbitt pleaded guilty in 2019 to conspiracy to commit money laundering. The release notes that "The count of wire fraud conspiracy to which McClure pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine."
• A false cancer claim (N.D. Ala.). Jennifer Flynn Cataldo "pled guilty in August to one count of wire fraud and one count of bank fraud for using her claim of terminal cancer to get money from family and friends and to solicit donations through the online fund-raising site, GoFundMe." In November 2017 a federal judge sentenced her to 25 months and 20 days in prison and ordered $79,629 in restitution.
• Another false cancer fundraiser (N.D. Cal.). In October 2021 Amanda Christine Riley "pleaded guilty in federal court today to wire fraud in connection with a scheme to solicit donations from individuals to help her pay for cancer treatments she never needed nor received."
• 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle (D. Colo.). According to the Justice Department, the scheme ran from January 2017 to June 2019, and, as the department described the charges, its operators "lied to prospective members about how much money they could make," with mass emails claiming "typical members with no prior skills or experience could easily earn between $5,000 and $10,000 in 10 to 14 days." Brian Kaplan and Jerrold Maurer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in November 2023 and were each sentenced to 22 months; Alex Dee entered a guilty plea in July 2024 and was sentenced in December 2024 to 36 months. A March 2025 order set restitution at "a total of $22,451,085.97."

In each of these four cases, the federal charges included wire fraud or a conspiracy to commit it.

How to spot a grifter

Grifters rely on the same pressure tactics as any scammer. The FTC's guide How To Avoid a Scam lists four signs:

1. "Scammers PRETEND to be from an organization you know."
2. "Scammers say there's a PROBLEM or a PRIZE."
3. "Scammers PRESSURE you to act immediately."
4. "Scammers tell you to PAY in a specific way."

Its counterpoint is worth remembering: "Honest businesses will give you time to make a decision." For money-making pitches, the FTC adds that "Glowing stories of success could be fake or misleading, and positive online reviews may have come from made-up profiles," and suggests you "Do an online search for the name of the company along with words like "scam," "review," or "complaint."" It also says "Legit employers... will never ask you to pay to get a job."

If you have a message, call or offer in front of you, our guide to telling if something is a scam goes channel by channel, and the free scam checker walks you through the warning signs for your situation.

What to do if you were grifted

1. Contact the company you paid through, right away. The FTC's advice depends on how you paid. For a bank transfer or Zelle: "Report it to your bank or credit union immediately. Ask them to reverse the payment and refund your money." For a credit card, including when "a scammer tricked you into paying them with a credit card": "Report it to the credit card issuer immediately" and "Ask them to refund your money." For cash sent by mail: "Contact the U.S. Postal Inspection Service at 1-877-876-2455 immediately." For crypto, the FTC is blunt: "Cryptocurrency payments don't have the same legal protections as credit and debit cards do, so it can be hard to get your money back." Our guide on how to get money back after a scam explains the rules for each method, and what to do if your bank refused a scam refund covers the next step.
2. Report it. The FTC takes reports at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. It also says to "Notify the social networking site or app where you met the scammer, too." See where to report a scam for which agency handles which kind of scam.
3. Keep everything. Save messages, receipts, profiles and payment records; reports and refund requests both depend on them.
4. Consider whether a civil claim makes sense. A victim can sue for deceit under state law; California, for example, makes one who willfully deceives another liable "for any damage which he thereby suffers" (Cal. Civ. Code § 1709). Whether that is worth pursuing depends on the amount and whether the person can be found. Our guide on when a lawyer helps after a scam covers the realistic options.

Calling someone a grifter: a note on defamation

Because grifter suggests dishonesty, people sometimes ask whether calling someone one in public can get them sued. The one decision our research found that addresses the word directly is Russo v. Conde Nast Publications, 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992). GQ magazine had described the plaintiff as an "insurance salesman-cum-grifter." The court wrote that "the slang term 'grifter', it unquestionably has a wide variety of connotations which largely depend on the context of the terms usage," noted that the description was "informal in nature, and does not make a specific charge," and held that "as a matter of law, 'grifter' is not defamatory per se" and, "while unflattering," not defamatory as a matter of law.

That is one federal trial court applying Louisiana law to one article. It does not set a national rule, and it did not rest on the word alone: the court also found that Russo was a limited-purpose public figure who offered no evidence of malice, and that even read as "con man" the label fit his undisputed record as a witness. Whether any particular statement is actionable depends on what was said, how and where. Our guides to the elements of defamation and defenses to defamation, including opinion, explain how courts approach that question.

Related guides

• Scams and fraud laws hub
• How to tell if something is a scam
• Romance scams
• Crypto and investment scams
• Elder fraud
• Where to report a scam
• How to get money back after a scam
• When a lawyer helps after a scam

Last updated: October 6, 2026.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers US federal law, FTC policy and examples from selected state codes as verified on October 6, 2026. For your specific situation, contact the bank or payment company you used, the agencies named above, or a lawyer licensed in your state.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a grifter?

A grifter is someone who gets money or property through a swindle, trick or con rather than force. Cambridge Dictionary defines a grifter as someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people, and Merriam-Webster says a grifter might be a pickpocket, a crooked gambler, a scammer or a con artist.

What does grifting mean?

Grifting means getting money or property dishonestly through cleverness or deceit. Merriam-Webster defines grift as to obtain money or property illicitly, as in a confidence game.

Is grifting illegal?

It depends on the conduct. Grifting is slang, not a charge; getting money or property by deceiving someone about a material fact can be prosecuted as fraud or theft by deception, such as federal wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. Obvious exaggeration and honestly held opinions are generally not what those laws punish.

Is a grifter the same as a con artist?

Close, but not identical. Merriam-Webster defines a con artist, or confidence man, as a person who tricks other people in order to get their money, and lists the con artist as one kind of grifter alongside pickpockets, crooked gamblers and scammers.

Where does the word grifter come from?

Merriam-Webster calls the origin murky; its most plausible explanation is that grift is an early 20th-century alteration of graft, and it dates the first known use of grift to 1902. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries also traces grifter to the early 20th century.

Is it fraud if I got something for my money?

It can be. In Kousisis v. United States (2025) the Supreme Court upheld a federal wire fraud conviction where the contractor finished the work to the customer's satisfaction, because the contract was obtained through material lies. The scheme still has to aim at money or property, and the lie has to be material.

What is the difference between a sales pitch and fraud?

Fraud generally needs a material deception, such as a false statement of fact or a promise made with no intention of keeping it, used knowingly to get money or property. The FTC says it generally will not pursue obviously exaggerated puffery that ordinary consumers do not take seriously, but statements made to deceive buyers are not mere puffing.

What is the penalty for wire fraud?

Under 18 U.S.C. 1343, up to 20 years in prison and a fine, or up to 30 years and a $1,000,000 fine if the violation is tied to a declared disaster or emergency benefit or affects a financial institution. Mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341 carries the same maximums.

Can I be sued for calling someone a grifter?

Defamation claims depend on context and state law. In Russo v. Conde Nast (E.D. La. 1992) a federal court held that grifter is not defamatory per se and that the term has a wide variety of connotations; that is one trial court applying Louisiana law, not a national rule.

What should I do if I was grifted?

Contact the bank, card issuer or payment company you used right away and ask it to reverse the payment, as the FTC advises. Then report the scam to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov and to the site or app where it started.