Guide: Understanding E-commerce Return Abuse

What is e-commerce return abuse?

Return abuse in e-commerce refers to the intentional manipulation or exploitation of online return policies to gain an unfair advantage, resulting in financial losses, logistical strain, and inventory challenges for retailers. E-commerce returns cost retailers significantly more than in-store returns, due to added factors like shipping costs, restocking, and potential reselling challenges.

While return policies are crucial for customer satisfaction, many customers and fraudsters exploit these policies, turning e-commerce return abuse into a costly challenge.

‍

Types of return abuse in e-commerce

‍

Stolen Tender Purchase Returns

Description: Fraudsters use stolen credit cards to purchase items online and then return the goods for cash, gift cards, or store credits, which are irreversible. The retailer also faces disputes and chargebacks from the legitimate cardholders.

Example: A fraudster uses a stolen credit card to buy a high-end laptop from an online retailer. After receiving the laptop, they return it to a physical store location, claiming it was an unwanted gift, and receive store credit. Later, the legitimate cardholder disputes the original purchase, leading to a chargeback. The retailer loses both the merchandise and the sale revenue.

Impact: Retailers face financial loss from both the chargeback and the refunded amount. Additionally, they may incur reputational damage and increased scrutiny from payment processors, which could lead to higher transaction fees or restrictions on their merchant accounts.

Reseller Abuse

Description: Individuals purchase limited-release or high-demand items intending to resell them at a profit. If they cannot sell the items, they return them within the allowed return period, effectively using the retailer as a no-cost inventory holder.

Example: A customer buys multiple pairs of limited-edition sneakers, intending to resell them at a profit. When they cannot sell them, they return the shoes just before the return window closes, effectively using the retailer as free inventory storage.

Impact: This creates artificial demand fluctuations and results in inventory management challenges. Retailers may face overstocking issues, lost sales opportunities, and additional costs related to processing returns, inspecting items, and restocking.

Bricking

Description: Customers purchase functional electronic devices, remove valuable components or render them inoperable, and then return the compromised items as if they were defective.

Example: A customer buys a new smartphone, removes the high-capacity battery and replaces it with an old, depleted one. They then return the phone, claiming it doesn't hold a charge. The retailer refunds the purchase, and the returned phone, now with a faulty battery, is unsellable without repair.

Impact: Retailers incur direct financial losses from processing refunds for tampered goods. Additionally, they may face increased warranty claims, repair costs, and a damaged reputation due to poor product quality perception if resold to unsuspecting customers.

Empty Boxing

Description: Fraudsters purchase valuable items and return boxes that are empty or filled with worthless materials, exploiting retailers' tendencies to trust customers, especially during busy periods. Most retailers side with the consumer for such returns if this is their first attempt.

Example: A customer orders an expensive kitchen appliance online. After receiving it, they fill the box with old magazines to match the weight and seal it professionally. They return the box, claiming dissatisfaction, and receive a full refund. The retailer later discovers the deceit but has already processed the refund.

Impact: This results in pure financial loss, as the retailer refunds money for a non-existent product. Store policies may need to become stricter, leading to longer return processing times and reduced customer trust.

Counterfeiting

Description: Customers purchase genuine items and then return counterfeit versions, often of high-quality replicas, making detection difficult. This not only results in financial loss but also risks damaging the retailer's reputation if the counterfeit items are resold.

Example: A customer buys an authentic designer handbag from an online retailer. They then purchase a high-quality counterfeit of the same model from an illicit source, return the fake handbag to the retailer, and keep the genuine one. If the counterfeit goes unnoticed, it may be resold, potentially leading to customer complaints and reputational damage.

Impact: Beyond the direct financial loss, retailers risk significant reputational damage. If customers discover they received counterfeit goods, it can erode brand trust, reduce future sales, and even result in legal consequences.

Wardrobing

Description: Customers purchase items, use them briefly, and then return them as "unused" or "unworn" for a full refund. This is common with clothing, electronics, and other items that can be temporarily utilized.

Example: An individual buys an expensive dress for a wedding, wears it once, and then returns it, claiming it was never worn. The retailer, unable to detect the brief use, processes the return and incurs a loss, especially if the item cannot be resold at full price.

Impact: Returned items may require discounting or may be entirely unsellable, leading to loss of revenue. For apparel retailers, excessive wardrobing increases operational costs related to inspection, cleaning, and repackaging, impacting profit margins. Less that 30% of wardrobed items make it back to inventory.

BOGO / BMSM Abuse

Description: Abusers exploit "Buy One, Get One" or "Buy More, Save More" promotions by returning the full-priced item while keeping the free or discounted one, thereby gaining products at reduced or no cost.

Example: A customer takes advantage of a "Buy One, Get One Free" promotion by purchasing two items. They later return the full-priced item and retain the free one, effectively receiving a product without payment.

Impact: Retailers lose money on the discounted or free product, which can erode margins on promotional campaigns. It also distorts promotion effectiveness metrics and may lead to stricter policies, reducing genuine customer engagement with promotions.

Return Shipping Label Fraud (FTID)

Description: Fraudsters alter return shipping labels to misdirect packages, sending empty boxes or worthless items to incorrect addresses. They then claim refunds, alleging the retailer mishandled the return.

Example: A scammer purchases a high-value item online and requests a return. They modify the return shipping label to send an empty box to an unrelated address. After the package is marked as delivered, they contact the retailer, claiming the return was sent but not processed, and request a refund.

‍Impact: This type of fraud is particularly costly because it can be difficult to detect and prove. Retailers may face increased shipping costs, refund losses, and logistical headaches when investigating these fraudulent claims.

Free Shipping Abuse

Description: Customers add extra items to their online orders to qualify for free shipping thresholds and later return the unwanted items, causing the retailer to incur unnecessary shipping and processing costs.

Example: A shopper wants to buy a $45 item but notices that orders over $50 qualify for free shipping. They add a $10 accessory to meet the threshold. After receiving the order with free shipping, they return the accessory for a refund, leaving the retailer to absorb the shipping costs.

Impact: The retailer absorbs unnecessary shipping and processing costs, reducing profitability. Over time, frequent abuse of free shipping promotions can force businesses to increase minimum purchase thresholds or discontinue free shipping, potentially deterring genuine customers.

Bracketing

Description: Customers purchase multiple variations of a product (e.g., different sizes or colors) with the intention of keeping only one and returning the rest. While not inherently abusive, this practice increases return rates and operational costs for retailers.

Example: A customer orders the same pair of shoes in three different sizes to ensure the best fit. After selecting the appropriate size, they return the other two pairs. The retailer bears the costs of processing the returns and restocking the items.

Impact: Retailers face additional costs in processing returns, restocking, and potential discounting of returned items if packaging is damaged. High return rates also complicate inventory forecasting and may lead to increased pricing to offset losses.

Guarantee Abuse

Description: Individuals repeatedly exploit satisfaction or performance guarantees by returning or exchanging items multiple times or making false claims about defects to receive upgrades or refunds.

Example: A customer purchases a high-end blender with a satisfaction guarantee. They use it extensively for several months and then claim dissatisfaction, returning it for a full refund. They then purchase a newer model and repeat the process, effectively using the products without payment.

Impact: The cost of repeated returns can be substantial, leading retailers to tighten return policies or shorten guarantees. This can reduce customer trust and deter legitimate buyers who appreciate flexible return policies.

Item Not Received Fraud Claims

Description: Customers falsely claim that purchased items were not received or that the purchase was unauthorized, seeking refunds while retaining the items.

Example: A customer orders electronics online and, after delivery is confirmed, contacts the retailer stating the package never arrived. They request a refund or replacement while keeping the original items.

Impact: Retailers lose both inventory and revenue, and they often have little recourse in disputes. High rates of INR claims may result in stricter shipping policies, additional verification steps, and increased costs for insurance and signature requirements, all of which negatively impact the customer experience.

‍

The impact of return abuse on e-commerce retailers

Return abuse presents both direct and indirect challenges for e-commerce retailers. Direct costs include lost revenue, additional labor costs for inspection, and restocking expenses. Indirect impacts include logistical disruptions, increased fraud prevention costs, and inventory management complications. Notably, excessive abuse often leads retailers to tighten return policies, which can discourage legitimate customers, potentially harming customer satisfaction and loyalty.

As e-commerce sales continue to grow, addressing return abuse has become a priority. Retailers are now investing in predictive analytics, Al-powered fraud detection platforms like Pinch Al, and comprehensive customer return histories to identify suspicious patterns. By enforcing return limits, requiring proof of identity for high-value returns, and segmenting return policies, retailers are working to balance customer satisfaction with the prevention of return abuse.