©AlpakaVideo via Canva.com
June 4, 2025
Are Retailers To Blame for Return Abuse?
A new survey finds consumers believe retailers are at least partly responsible for fraudulent returns, with 68% believing retailers make it easy to abuse flexible return policies.
The survey of over 4,000 U.S. and U.K. consumers from Forter, which helps online sellers reduce fraud, found nearly half (49%) admit to abusing retailers’ policies in the last 12 months. Of the offenders, 29% did so to avoid paying full price.
Approximately 30% of all respondents admitted to wardrobing — using an item and then returning it as if it were unused — but that figure jumps to nearly half among those aged 18 to 34. Of the respondents, 21% also acknowledged that they had deliberately over-purchased to qualify for free shipping, with the intent to return the extra items.
At the same time, the survey found that nearly half (48%) of U.S. and U.K. consumers are buying more from retailers with lenient return policies due to financial concerns, with 16% having stopped shopping with a retailer altogether because they made their return policy stricter.
Forter warned that a “one-size-fits-all approach” to combat return fraud may turn away good customers. Ozge Ozcan, chief customer officer of Forter, said, “By knowing who they’re doing business with, retailers can strike the crucial balance between customer-friendly policies and protection against serial abuse.”
Lauren Beitelspacher, a marketing professor at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, whose work covers return policy research, told USA Today that she believes online shoppers have exploited overly generous return policies introduced during the pandemic, when returning items in person was difficult. She said, “So in order for retailers to minimize the consumers’ risk, they offer free returns and free shipping, and people just went nuts and took advantage of it.”
Reports last year confirmed that REI and Target were among retailers banning some “serial returners,” including shoppers wardrobing or bracketing, which is when shoppers order multiple sizes or colors with the intent of returning those they don’t want.
Beyond bans, retailers have been taking other steps to reduce the rising costs of returns, including charging for mailed returns, reserving free shipping on returns for loyalty members, and shortening return windows.
A global survey conducted last year by returns management platform Loop polled around 600 retail professionals overseeing their company’s returns process and found that the most common responses to returns fraud or policy abuse were:
- Tightening return policies, 47%
- Permanently banning repeat offenders, 41%
- Implementing return fees, 37%
- Highlighting the negative environmental impact of returns, 35%
- Modifying the online return process to require more detailed customer input, 34%
The survey also found that a majority of respondents (52%) indicated that “maintaining a good customer experience” was the top challenge their company faces when addressing returns abuse.
Discussion Questions
What paths do you see to reducing the practices of wardrobing or bracketing that drive return abuse?
Do you see benefits to banning or otherwise penalizing consumers for either practice?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Mohamed Amer, PhD
CEO & Strategic Board Advisor, Strategy Doctor
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Shep Hyken
Chief Amazement Officer, Shepard Presentations, LLC
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Will an In-Store Retail Tech ‘Confidence Gap’ Create Winners and Losers?
A new survey suggests that in-store retail tech could be a major factor in retailer success…Walmart’s Next CEO Era: From McMillon to Furner
Walmart CEO Doug McMillon will soon be replaced by John Furner. What’s next for the retailer?Which Brands Are Missing the Boat on Advent Calendars?
Advent calendars appear to be trending upward in popularity, with potential to move to other holidays…
Retailers are not to blame for the abuse. The people doing the abusing are to blame. However, retailers have set the playing field to a level where returns are easy and do not reflect the true costs to their businesses. That genie is very difficult to put back in the bottle. What retailers now need to do is identify patterns of abuse and tighten the policies for those responsible. REI has done this with serial returners.
You said it (and stole my thunder in the process).
As long as there is a system, people will ‘game it.’ Retailers should work to develop deeper relationships with customers…and politely remind them that excessive returns hurt them..,appeal to their sense of fair play. That said, AI can and should be used to spot serial
abusers and these customers should be asked to shop elsewhere.
A variation of “Modifying the online return process to require more detailed customer input”:
Survey customers not just in returns process… ask about their UX pros/cons of size & fit on the site.
I would like to see more description of the fabric… building a scale of softness, wrinkling, stretching out… practical info. Cut down on surprises.
One pet peeve (only to get worse with gen ai) is apparel descriptions that are generic & trite stories (e.g. ‘goes well with everything’). This is a battle between retailers wanting to provide ‘experience’ and shoppers finding exactly what they like.
Yes. Retailers have, over the past 20 years, pushed so hard to foist goods on customers it’s no wonder returns are out of control. In large part this error was driven by an ill-considered response to Amazon’s policies. While it is too late to simply rewind, retailers should seek to evolve forward with a policy that customer pricing should reflect any services which are premium. Thus, receiving your goods at your home without leaving is a premium service — it should not be rewarded with free shipping. Of course, the problem is, in many ways, damage to the common expectations of customers and not created by individual retailers. However it will take individual retail actions to begin to move to a better place.
Liberal return policies made it easy for some customers to take overt advantage of retailers’ generosity. Call it abuse if you will. The customers will most likely say, “They allow us to do it, so we will.” The problem is that practices like “wardrobing” were not intended to be part of the liberal policy. A retailer can still maintain liberal policies, but it must establish some boundaries. And, I am 100% in agreement with banning the worst offenders with this caveat. Unless the abuser has crossed a line (such as deception, legal, etc.), leave the door open for them to fall into alignment with the policy in the future.
Right! That is an important nuance – got to leave the door open for the abuser to fall into alignment with the policy in the future (unless they’ve crossed the “line”).
THEY MADE ME A CRIMINAL! Honestly, how are we to take seriously someone who blames the retailer, when they admit they did something untoward to avoid paying full price? (It’s their fault… for charging so much!) That having been said, policies which seem to reward irresponsible behavior – e.g. free shipping minimums – are open to criticism on broader grounds. So maybe we can do kind of a BOGO: get rid of a bad policy for legitimate reasons, and it may curb the illegitimate ones as well.
Return abuse is about unintended consequences. With 68% of consumers believing retailers make it easy to abuse flexible return policies, and 49% admitting to abusing policies in the last 12 months, we’re witnessing a classic “tragedy of the commons” scenario where individual rational behavior collectively destroys the system. The real culprit is competitive mimicry without strategic thinking. Retailers essentially created a prisoner’s dilemma where no single company could unilaterally tighten return policies without losing customers to competitors. Retailers can add friction by design to make returns slightly inconvenient without being punitive, and also to display return rates by product category (“Most customers keep this item”) to leverage conformity bias.
“…friction by design…” Perfect!
Educating consumers about the environmental and economic impacts of return abuse could help shift behaviors.
Retailers can also implement more stringent return policies to discourage these practices. Additionally, incentivizing customers to make more thoughtful purchasing decisions, such as offering discounts for fewer returns, could further reduce the frequency of these behaviors.
Banning return abuse could lead to significant reductions in waste and carbon emissions, as fewer products would need to be shipped back and forth unnecessarily.
It would also encourage consumers to be more mindful of their purchasing habits, potentially resulting in more sustainable consumption patterns.
Moreover, retailers could experience cost savings from reduced logistics expenses and improved inventory management.
Theory always sounds so easy =)
1) the difference between what people say they would do vs actually do
2) Making hauls UNcool. Making wearing something multiple times to be COOL.
Part of this would be showing that fashion trends come around again…
if you’re in your 20’s or 30’s… you have more than enough years to see trends repeat!
a) why buy the same trend you like multiple times?
b) up your personal style to mix & match to ‘build a wardrobe’ vs wear/return wardrobe
c) service industry to step it up… repairs, reimagine (long dresses become short), tailors
d) my own go to- the difference between ‘Love It’ or, merely ‘like it’. A stress test of shopping.
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Those that choose to buy and return in large quantities do that because it works for them. It’s up to the business to determine if there is more downside to limiting that practice than allowing it. Agree with everyone that blaming the retailer is off base.
But if it’s the “Influencers” doing the buy/return… or worse yet the wardrobing to return worn items… then they are part of the problem of normalizing the behavior
Retailers aren’t to blame for return abuse. But they are responsible for results in policies they’ve created (or not) and the missed opportunities by not staying on top of the customer path to purchase and return. For abusive customers, state the policy simply, clearly, upfront, and implement it consistently.
But equally, retailers must never forget – there are a set of customers who often return clothing because website descriptions around fit, texture and color are inconsistent or poor. And it’s on the retailer to own this gap by giving the customer every reasonable chance to make a good decision for themselves. Personalization and customization will be an important step to take.
I’m surprised not more retailers use external, large tags that can’t be hidden if worn. Evening dresses have used these for a long time, but there are other apparel categories that could benefit. The cost of having staff to inspect all return so thoroughly is the alternative.
Yes, content like size charts & reviews structured around size/fit can help!
Free returns and free shipping were amongst the best customer acquisition tools ever. Customers needed comfort and reassurance when shopping the new fangled internet. That was a couple decades ago. Retailers now make returns easy with eyes wide open. They know exactly what they are doing and how much it’s costing them. (But…market share!) That’s at least enabling bad behavior. So the next step is clamping down on the bad actors. It’s not like they are hard to spot. And be glad they are gone. They were stealing, and laughing about it!
with all discussion of machine learning & ai… there should be coming more ways to quickly process (and monitor) unusual purchase & return behaviors.
The more likely a retailer adds friction to returns, the more likely it is that the retailer will lose a customer. If a customer is confident that they can return a product, they are more likely to return and buy again. That is simple retiling.
As far as the cost of returns, if the retailer doesn’t include that in their overall pricing, they are foolish. It should be the cost of doing business, just like sale prices or advertising.
To reduce wardrobing, retailers can insist that returns include the original tags attached. To reduce bracketing, retailers can show sizing charts or encourage shoppers to try it on in-store (or use AR-driven virtual try-ons) for greater certainty of fit.
E-commerce systems can easily spot when an apparel shopper buys the same item in multiple sizes. That touchpoint is an opportunity to ask the shopper if she’s sure she wants to proceed and remind her of returns fees.
Retail is going through a complex shift when it comes to returns.
Customers today are shopping with more flexibility. Buying multiple sizes, trying things at home, or returning items they don’t end up needing has become a common habit. It’s not always done with bad intent. It’s often shaped by the convenience they’ve been offered over time.
To help ease the pressure on retailers, customers should consider returning items either by visiting the store or using courier services thoughtfully. The growing volume of returns affects how retailers manage operations and costs.
Many brands are now rethinking how to handle this shift. Some are introducing return fees or adjusting policies to manage costs.
It is important to recognize that changes are needed on both sides to create a fair and sustainable approach going forward.