December 29, 2025
Image Courtesy of Macy’s
Should Retailers Be Charging Fees for Mail-In Returns?
Several major retailers now charge customers to return items by mail, even when those items are unopened, unused, and exactly as they arrived. In most cases, returns are free when dropped off at stores.
The cost of returns has risen for retailers as e-commerce has grown. Beyond shipping costs, the cost to process a return can be anywhere from 20%–65% of the item’s original value. The return fees also combat fraud.
Macy’s started charging $9.99 return fees for non-Star Rewards members in 2023.
“Through our Macy’s Star Rewards program, members enjoy free shipped returns as part of their loyalty benefits,” a spokesperson told NBC Chicago. “Customers can still return items to any Macy’s store free of charge.”
Foot Locker similarly offers free returns for FLX Rewards members, while deducting a $6.99 fee from refunds when using its Ready Returns label. L.L.Bean’s returns through UPS or U.S. mail cost $6.50 per package, or are free for customers using an L.L.Bean Mastercard.
JCPenney’s mailed-in returns include an $8 fee. On its website, JCPenney states of the reasoning behind the charge, “UPS will ship your order back to JCPenney for the flat $8 fee. This has been significantly discounted and will cover your entire return from a single order.”
TJ Maxx has charged a fee of $11.99 for return-by-mail since 2023.
Other stores charging for mailed returns include Zara, with a fee of $4.95; J.Crew $7.50; H&M, $3.99; and Urban Outfitters, $5. Kohl’s and Ulta Beauty customers have to cover any return shipping charges. Amazon now only promises “at least one free return shipping option.”
Some Retailers Stick Fast on Free Returns, Mailed or Otherwise
Several major chains nonetheless still offer prepaid labels to cover gratis mailed returns on most items, including Walmart, Target, Costco, Nordstrom, Gap Inc.’s banners, Victoria’s Secret, Sephora, and Apple.
The National Retail Federation’s “2025 Retail Returns Landscape” study done in collaboration with UPS-owned Happy Returns found a majority (72%) of merchants now charge for at least some return options, up from 66% in 2024.
Among the benefits seen from implementing fees for returns from the retailers surveyed was a reduction in overall return rates, cited by 53%; an increase in exchange rates, 52%; shoppers choosing a different, free return method, 51%; recouping revenue from returns, 43%; and a reduction in return fraud, 42%.
On the downside, 47% of the retailers surveyed indicated that implementing fees for returns led to an increase in customer complaints, with 37% saying they’ve lost customers over return fees. The implementation of return fees led to an increase in return fraud for 44% of respondents, and a reduction in exchange rates for 37%.
BrainTrust
Kai Clarke
CEO, President- American Retail Consultants
Brian Numainville
Principal, The Feedback Group
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do you see more benefits than drawbacks in retailers charging for mailed-in returns?
What’s your overall opinion on when and how much to charge for a mailed return?
Poll
Loading …
No. Returns cost money, whether the consumer is charged for it when they try to return a product, or if it is worked into the full cost that the consumer will bear when they purchase a product. How the consumer “sees” the cost of returns is inconsequential. What is important is how it impact the selling price of the product.
I’m skeptical that charging consumers for mailed-in returns delivers more benefits than drawbacks in most retail contexts. While it’s understandable that retailers want to recoup the real costs associated with reverse logistics, imposing fees on returns in a market where consumers have abundant alternatives — from free returns at competitors to buy-online, pick-up-in-store (BOPIS) options — risks damaging both conversion and loyalty. Today’s shopper expects a seamless, low-friction experience, and return policies are a core part of that value proposition. When faced with a choice between a retailer that charges for returns and one that doesn’t, many consumers will simply shop elsewhere, especially for first-time buys or higher-risk categories like apparel and footwear.
Instead of leaning into return fees as a blunt cost-recovery tool, retailers should double down on tactics that reduce the need for returns upfront — because preventing a return is far less costly and far more brand-positive than trying to penalize one after the fact. Better product content (detailed descriptions, size charts, videos), robust customer reviews, virtual fit tools, and stronger pre-purchase engagement all help align expectations with reality and cut return rates organically. Likewise, hybrid fulfillment models like BOPIS and curbside pickup let customers inspect products before leaving the store, which often translates into lower return incidence. These kinds of proactive measures preserve the customer experience while addressing the root drivers of returns rather than trying to tax them after the fact.
In my view, consumers will not tolerate paid mailed-in returns in a competitive marketplace where free returns have become a differentiator, and where choice and convenience are central to purchase decisions. If retailers feel compelled to adjust their return economics, it’s far better to innovate around prevention, clarity, and fit certainty than to impose fees that ultimately shift volume to competitors who offer a more customer-friendly experience.
It’s mind blowing to think that customers have been able to order products then return them with retailers paying return shipping — all without customers paying for this premium service. I don’t know when or how retailers stopped using fundamental business logic — as with how customers will pay for premium services and that charging them for those services is an important foundation of good customer relations. Of course, digital hype has contributed greatly to this mistake — hype I’ve written about in a post about “The Tech Obsession with the Cheap.” (https://www.douggarnett.com/retail/pricing-and-complexity-part-3-the-tech-obsession-with-cheap/)
Yes! it is a multi-pronged approach.
First, consumers mist be weaned off free returns.
Second, if the retail price of the products already reflects to processing of returns those customers who do not return are paying a higher price than they should be paying.
Third, the retailers in question should make it very clear that they attempt to keep their prices as low as possible to all consumers – including those who do not return product – and therefore, are compelled to charge for returns. There are multiple reasons why this is true.
It costs the retailer money to process returnsA return that sits in the customers home for three weeks (I picked a number) loses its value with time and may, in fact, miss the entire selling season.The item being returned may not be resalable because of its condition
Retailers unintentionally conditioned consumers to expect something that is not practical and now must work to reverse course.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. It’s almost 2026…not 2006.
Consumers still expect retailers to provide free return labels, because it’s a barrier otherwise. From a shopper point of view – they didn’t drive to the store and use the in-store utilities, nor the higher costs of retail rent/backroom space, nor the labor of in-store shopping experts, nor the store packaging. The shopper expects these savings are already baked into the online cost structure and pricing.
Go against the grain and charge customers return shipping at your own peril.
Year-in-year-out we all nod our heads that returns are undesireable, and the whole schema of free everything has to change, yet whenever even a trival change is made toward correcting that, reaction sets in. So if I may rephrase the question: Should Retailers Be Charging Fees for Mail-In Returns? Should retailers continue to do things that lose money simply because someone argues “they have to”?
The problem with this discussion is that retailers view each return as a money-losing event. Returns are part of the customer acquisition and satisfaction process. Indeed, if a particular customer is always returning, that is a problem to be addressed. But if a regular customer, buying regularly, returns occasionally, that is simply the way business works and should work. Can we call that loyalty?
By charging for returns, retailers send customers to other retailers, giving them confidence they can shop risk-free. To me, if a retailer charges me for a return, shame on me, and I never buy from that retailer again. I see charging for returns as a penalty for shopping with that retailer.
You’re in popular company. It was NRF who had a 2024-2025 study suggesting over 50% of shoppers actively avoid retailers who charge them for returns.
Good luck if you start charging for returns. There are always other places to buy and I’m sure shoppers will find them. While we may all agree that returns cost money and that it doesn’t make business sense, shoppers vote with their wallet and will simply go elsewhere. In short, the train has left the station, and as much as everyone would like to go back in time and change things, the conditioning of the shopper has already taken place.
86% of shoppers prefer box-free in-person returns with instant refunds and by making those returns free, retailers are funneling shoppers to the only way to achieve consolidated returns apposed to one-at-a-time returns that don’t provide fraud prevention – a $100B retail pain in itself. Consolidated in-person returns allow for a tension sweet spot to be achieved where the customer is happy and the retailer can stay in business.
Retailers did this to themselves. It started with free shipping. The free, no-hassle returns. The bottom line is that returns cost money. Someone has to pay. It’s either baked into the retail price, which could reduce sales among cost/price-sensitive consumers, or it’s charged on the back end, which can also reduce sales among those same consumers.
What concerns me is how many customers are lost because of charging for returns (37% according to the article). I’d like to see numbers on the difference between what it costs the retailer to accept free returns and how much business is lost if charging for returns. Furthermore, I’m betting that charging for returns is reducing the number of returns.
Finally, offering free returns to a local store is a nice compromise, even if it’s not as convenient as shipping the merchandise back.
Retailers are simply passing some of the costs associated with returns to consumers. This is necessary because the number of returns have increased and the general costs of logistics have risen. However, there is a balancing act here. Consumers hate paying for returns and if charges deter them from making purchases then policies can reduce market share and loyalty.
Why do consumers hate paying return fees? I contend that they believe that if they must return an item, it is the retailer’s fault, not theirs.
Mostly because, from past policies, retailers have set expectations that it should be free. So charging now jars.
Returns have always been a cost of doing business, but free mail-in returns changed customer behavior in ways retailers are still dealing with. Many customers now order with the expectation that returning is part of the purchase process, not an exception. That drives higher volumes, more complexity, and real cost that eventually shows up somewhere in the model.
Charging for mail-in returns can work, but only when it is thoughtful and clearly explained. The goal should not be to recover every dollar, but to encourage better choices. In-store returns, exchanges, and loyalty-based benefits give customers options while keeping the relationship intact. In my experience, the issue is less about whether a fee exists and more about whether the policy feels fair, predictable, and aligned with how customers actually shop.
More Discussions
How Can Retailers Improve Shoppers’ Sense of Closure When Concerns Emerge?
How can retailers better provide closure and proper resolution to today’s shoppers?NRF 2026 Rewind: Abercrombie’s CEO Shares Leadership Lessons
In a session at the NRF Big Show, Abercrombie & Fitch Co.’s CEO Fran Horowitz shared…Is the Luxury Department Store Facing Extinction?
Are luxury retail stores expected to go the way of the dodo?
No. Returns cost money, whether the consumer is charged for it when they try to return a product, or if it is worked into the full cost that the consumer will bear when they purchase a product. How the consumer “sees” the cost of returns is inconsequential. What is important is how it impact the selling price of the product.
I’m skeptical that charging consumers for mailed-in returns delivers more benefits than drawbacks in most retail contexts. While it’s understandable that retailers want to recoup the real costs associated with reverse logistics, imposing fees on returns in a market where consumers have abundant alternatives — from free returns at competitors to buy-online, pick-up-in-store (BOPIS) options — risks damaging both conversion and loyalty. Today’s shopper expects a seamless, low-friction experience, and return policies are a core part of that value proposition. When faced with a choice between a retailer that charges for returns and one that doesn’t, many consumers will simply shop elsewhere, especially for first-time buys or higher-risk categories like apparel and footwear.
Instead of leaning into return fees as a blunt cost-recovery tool, retailers should double down on tactics that reduce the need for returns upfront — because preventing a return is far less costly and far more brand-positive than trying to penalize one after the fact. Better product content (detailed descriptions, size charts, videos), robust customer reviews, virtual fit tools, and stronger pre-purchase engagement all help align expectations with reality and cut return rates organically. Likewise, hybrid fulfillment models like BOPIS and curbside pickup let customers inspect products before leaving the store, which often translates into lower return incidence. These kinds of proactive measures preserve the customer experience while addressing the root drivers of returns rather than trying to tax them after the fact.
In my view, consumers will not tolerate paid mailed-in returns in a competitive marketplace where free returns have become a differentiator, and where choice and convenience are central to purchase decisions. If retailers feel compelled to adjust their return economics, it’s far better to innovate around prevention, clarity, and fit certainty than to impose fees that ultimately shift volume to competitors who offer a more customer-friendly experience.
It’s mind blowing to think that customers have been able to order products then return them with retailers paying return shipping — all without customers paying for this premium service. I don’t know when or how retailers stopped using fundamental business logic — as with how customers will pay for premium services and that charging them for those services is an important foundation of good customer relations. Of course, digital hype has contributed greatly to this mistake — hype I’ve written about in a post about “The Tech Obsession with the Cheap.” (https://www.douggarnett.com/retail/pricing-and-complexity-part-3-the-tech-obsession-with-cheap/)
Yes! it is a multi-pronged approach.
First, consumers mist be weaned off free returns.
Second, if the retail price of the products already reflects to processing of returns those customers who do not return are paying a higher price than they should be paying.
Third, the retailers in question should make it very clear that they attempt to keep their prices as low as possible to all consumers – including those who do not return product – and therefore, are compelled to charge for returns. There are multiple reasons why this is true.
It costs the retailer money to process returnsA return that sits in the customers home for three weeks (I picked a number) loses its value with time and may, in fact, miss the entire selling season.The item being returned may not be resalable because of its condition
Retailers unintentionally conditioned consumers to expect something that is not practical and now must work to reverse course.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. It’s almost 2026…not 2006.
Consumers still expect retailers to provide free return labels, because it’s a barrier otherwise. From a shopper point of view – they didn’t drive to the store and use the in-store utilities, nor the higher costs of retail rent/backroom space, nor the labor of in-store shopping experts, nor the store packaging. The shopper expects these savings are already baked into the online cost structure and pricing.
Go against the grain and charge customers return shipping at your own peril.
Year-in-year-out we all nod our heads that returns are undesireable, and the whole schema of free everything has to change, yet whenever even a trival change is made toward correcting that, reaction sets in. So if I may rephrase the question:
Should Retailers Be Charging Fees for Mail-In Returns?Should retailers continue to do things that lose money simply because someone argues “they have to”?The problem with this discussion is that retailers view each return as a money-losing event. Returns are part of the customer acquisition and satisfaction process. Indeed, if a particular customer is always returning, that is a problem to be addressed. But if a regular customer, buying regularly, returns occasionally, that is simply the way business works and should work. Can we call that loyalty?
By charging for returns, retailers send customers to other retailers, giving them confidence they can shop risk-free. To me, if a retailer charges me for a return, shame on me, and I never buy from that retailer again. I see charging for returns as a penalty for shopping with that retailer.
You’re in popular company. It was NRF who had a 2024-2025 study suggesting over 50% of shoppers actively avoid retailers who charge them for returns.
Good luck if you start charging for returns. There are always other places to buy and I’m sure shoppers will find them. While we may all agree that returns cost money and that it doesn’t make business sense, shoppers vote with their wallet and will simply go elsewhere. In short, the train has left the station, and as much as everyone would like to go back in time and change things, the conditioning of the shopper has already taken place.
86% of shoppers prefer box-free in-person returns with instant refunds and by making those returns free, retailers are funneling shoppers to the only way to achieve consolidated returns apposed to one-at-a-time returns that don’t provide fraud prevention – a $100B retail pain in itself. Consolidated in-person returns allow for a tension sweet spot to be achieved where the customer is happy and the retailer can stay in business.
Retailers did this to themselves. It started with free shipping. The free, no-hassle returns. The bottom line is that returns cost money. Someone has to pay. It’s either baked into the retail price, which could reduce sales among cost/price-sensitive consumers, or it’s charged on the back end, which can also reduce sales among those same consumers.
What concerns me is how many customers are lost because of charging for returns (37% according to the article). I’d like to see numbers on the difference between what it costs the retailer to accept free returns and how much business is lost if charging for returns. Furthermore, I’m betting that charging for returns is reducing the number of returns.
Finally, offering free returns to a local store is a nice compromise, even if it’s not as convenient as shipping the merchandise back.
Retailers are simply passing some of the costs associated with returns to consumers. This is necessary because the number of returns have increased and the general costs of logistics have risen. However, there is a balancing act here. Consumers hate paying for returns and if charges deter them from making purchases then policies can reduce market share and loyalty.
Why do consumers hate paying return fees? I contend that they believe that if they must return an item, it is the retailer’s fault, not theirs.
Mostly because, from past policies, retailers have set expectations that it should be free. So charging now jars.
Returns have always been a cost of doing business, but free mail-in returns changed customer behavior in ways retailers are still dealing with. Many customers now order with the expectation that returning is part of the purchase process, not an exception. That drives higher volumes, more complexity, and real cost that eventually shows up somewhere in the model.
Charging for mail-in returns can work, but only when it is thoughtful and clearly explained. The goal should not be to recover every dollar, but to encourage better choices. In-store returns, exchanges, and loyalty-based benefits give customers options while keeping the relationship intact. In my experience, the issue is less about whether a fee exists and more about whether the policy feels fair, predictable, and aligned with how customers actually shop.