Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurusx | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with categorizing this as abuse. The company was offering a refund policy. The customers were using it.

My friend Kevin used to test out different GPUs when he was writing a game engine. He'd buy one, install it on his computer, run the engine, then return it a few days later. They often had a 10% restocking fee. Was he abusing policy?

It's the same sort of logic banks use to justify "identity theft." Ah yes, it's the fault of the customer, not the banks' poor verification methods.

That said, it's true that when large amounts of people do a thing, you'll have to adjust policy. But it's not their fault for taking advantage of policies they're legally allowed to use, and that the company freely offers.

View on HN

Yes? That is abusing the policy. Sounds like he was trying to start a business and wanted to do QA. Then you need to pay for that.

This is clearly unethical, but maybe not illegal.

He often did pay for that. That's the point of the 10% restocking fee.

Your friend was treating a return policy as a rental policy. I don't think that's in the spirit of a return policy.

Are we going to blame people for not buying WinRaR licenses next? These are businesses, they offer the policy for a variety of reasons, I am free to use them within the terms; it sounds a bit out there to categorise returning a product in a “no questions asked return” policy as unethical unless I actively sabotaged the product or did anything other than use it and give it back.

Not that you don't make a point with this, I do have to say that Winrar hasn't changed how they handle their licensing/usage to combat this. I suspect they're "okay" with it so to speak as a result.

The fact that businesses change their policies as a result of abuse should tell you whether these actions are within the spirit of what they intended or whether it's outside of it.

You shouldn't be angry that Apple is changing the terms then.

I find it unethical because the net effect is that companies stop offering friendly return policies. When people treat return policies by the letter of the agreement rather than by its spirit, they create a world where companies won't offer relaxed return policies, and therefore make the world a bit worse for everyone else.

It's not illegal to use the agreement in this way, and I would never try to make it so. But I would absolutely look down on someone for behaving this way.

No, that isn't the point of that at all. 10% isn't so you can use a card and then give it back. 10% is so the staff can package it up, send it back to the manufacturer so they can resell it. Or so they can mark it as "refurbished" and recoup some of the lost value of a new card.

There you go "some" of the value. So either the store or the manufacturer eats the rest of the lost value, in either case the person using the policy at face value is taking value. In a lot of cases taking value would be stealing, but this is one of those cases where there's only a social contract and a set of norms that guard it and it's not seen as such. Think of a complementary offering of some kind based on an honor system, some treat or trinket in a bowl. Sure you can take just one or take them all. If you take them all you can argue that they're free but you're still a that guy that helps bring about a tragedy of the commons.

Culturally in the states and Latin America that makes you jerk and people will hate you for it. So there is social pressure in place to help regulate those events, but it may not always be the case everywhere.

The 10% restocking fee is a compromise between offerring a permissive return policy that gets abused and none at all. I have always understood it to be a deterrent and not the exact amount that must be recouped in order to make returns net zero loss events.

This disconnect is precisely why you can get a refund in the US but not in India.

There's the "letter of the policy" interpretation, where anything the text of the policy doesn't explicitly forbid is A-Okay. And then there's the "socially acceptable norms" interpretation, where you're only supposed to ask for refunds when a product is actually defective, and if you go any further than that, society and HN comments will shame you for it.

In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people for anything and everything, so companies can have generous policies and lean on the social norms interpretation to keep people in check. India is more of a free-for-all, so companies feel the need to spell everything out.

> In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people for anything and everything, so companies can have generous policies and lean on the social norms interpretation to keep people in check.

Consumers in US can buy a product without the anxiety of not having read the fine print, knowing that the seller will honor the return policy. Sellers also end up selling more because most buyers like the product they buy. Society wins overall.

I have lived both in India and US, about two decades each at both places.

Oh I agree, this is definitely a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. I was mostly joking about the shaming bit because of all the sibling comments.

I think the calling out is justified. Having lived in India, it is a country filled with these Smart Alecks who ruin it for everyone. I find it the duty of the general public to call these out, if we want to keep good things.

Yes, he was abusing it. The refund policy is for if you're really unsatisfied with the product. If you buy a product with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.

Again, why? It's tautology to say "That's abuse because it's abuse." The business offers a policy. You're simply using it.

We can agree to disagree, but it's not X just because someone says it is.

How is what they said in any way circular or a tautology?

>If you buy a product with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.

Your position seems to be that if it's legal and within the technical guidelines, then it's not abuse. If so then what is abuse?

I think the issue is people operating in bad faith. I recall a story about people buying big TVs before the super bowl then returning them the next week. My opinion is that's abusing a company's generous return policy. The people doing that never intended to buy. The company had the policy to give customers more confidence in their purchases, not to run a free TV rental business.

There's a saying "this is why we can't have nice things". If people constantly push leniency or generosity to the limits, they get taken away, and it's a net loss to everybody else.

Finally, a logical comment. Thank you.

I counter with the following observation: You note that a return policy exists so that customers can use it. Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse?

Being able to return the product is often why customers buy something. How many times have you considered the return policy before buying? You can decide to return it for any reason you like: whether you dislike the product, whether you ran out of money and needed a refund, or for no reason at all.

If it's a problem, the business will change the policy, just as Apple did here.

> Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse?

If your plan wasn't to return it from the start, then it isn't abuse. This seems pretty simple. In your original example your "friend" was planning on using GPUs to test and then return them. At no point was he planning on keeping this purchase.

Now, I will say if you're friend bought 3 GPU's with the plan to keep one and returned two I would say that's not abuse, but there are certainly better ways to try before you buy.

There is a definite benefit to giving good faith customers confidence in their ability to return something if they aren't satisfied with it. If the majority of customers are not acting in good faith (meaning never intend to keep the item) that position becomes untenable for the business and as you state the terms are changed. The alternative is to drastically increase the price so that customers who actually want to purchase it can subsidize those that don't.

I'm not sure whether there's an ethical problem with acting in that way, but it resembles a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Or, "this is why we can't have nice things".

> Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse?

I'll give you an example, which is also a true story: I bought a 4K TV that could also run Android apps. But, while regular TV broadcasts displayed in 4K, the Android apps were limited to HD. This, of course were never mentioned in any of their marketing material. Did return, and did get a refund, but if it had worked as I thought it did, I would have kept it.

It's simple to me. The policy is based on "good faith" that people won't lie and abuse the return policy as a free rental.

You claim it's okay to follow the letter of the policy and abuse it. When too many people do that the policy is removed.

Result: You live in a culture where returns are disallowed.

Me, I'd prefer to live in a culture where returns are allowed. That only happens when people don't abuse the return policy. The fact that Apple changed their policy because people abused it is a loss for everyone that had no intention of abusing it. It's even a loss for those who were abusing it if they ever have a legit reason to want to return something.

There are a many many policies that only really work on social norms. Living in a society that respects those norms is "almost" always a nicer society to live in.

> The business offers a policy. You're simply using it.

There is the spirit and the letter of an agreement. The relative importance of these in commercial contexts varies from culture to culture. (The term of art is high trust versus low trust societies.) Abuse (versus breach) involves complying with the letter of an agreement while violating its spirit. As you observe, this is subjective.

Fundamentally, if return policies are treated by customers as a return versus rental, terms can be more generous. If they are abused, the terms must be stricter.

I want to participate in a market where businesses typically offer refunds. When too many people use refund policies in that way, businesses stop offering them. That makes things worse for me, so I wish they wouldn't do that.

I don't know if that rises to definition of abuse, but that's why I don't want people to use refunds that way.

The consquence of everyone "simply using" returns policies in that way is businesses having much more restrictive returns policies, as we see in India. Most of us don't want that.

Start producing something by yourself. You will be very happy with such "non-abusive" uses that generate you losses.

If you are an honest seller, you can't even resell returned products as brand new.

A return policy is not a rental program. Yes, this is abuse.

This is definitely abuse. The policy is there does not mean customer can use it in whatever way you like. The company honor the policy also does not mean the consumer is not abusing the policy.

Remember Costco permanently blocked some consumers due to abusing the return policy? Costco honors the policy, but those consumers were still considered as abusing the policy.

Exactly. That's Costco's right, and it's an example of the system working as intended.

Let me ask you this. Do you agree with illegal copyright infringement being classified as "piracy"? My issue here is the terminology. It's deceptive to classify this behavior as "abuse," as if someone was kicking a puppy.

It's an asshole thing to do, but it's not abuse. No one is doing anything illegal, and everyone is free to feel however they wish about their morals.

Actually you are wrong. There are absolutely laws against return abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud

This is the problem when people go around pretending like they are technically correct, when they aren't.

Everyone else, intuitively understood the problem with return abuse, except for you. Which is why you got this wrong.

If you had focused less on trying to find some clever hack or technically, then you wouldn't have been so misinformed on this issue.

No, there's nothing in that list even vaguely related to anything I've said. It shares a name. It's not the same thing at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud#Types

Not one of those examples is "the act of purchasing an item with the intent to return it."

Also, be less aggressive. We're having a conversation here. It's not a battle.

The entry you're looking for is Wardrobing, and it's most certainly not illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing

The Talk page even has someone asking the very same question I am: Why is it fraud? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wardrobing

It's not fraud. It's not "abuse," and it's not illegal. You're free to feel however you wish about it.

> It's not fraud. It's not "abuse," and it's not illegal

Yes it is. You are wrong.

https://www.news24.com/w24/Style/Fashion/Trends/wardrobing-e...

From the article:

"as it is an act that can, in fact, be prosecute"

https://www.spatzlawfirm.com/blog/2019/08/what-is-return-fra...

"Purchasing an item and using it for a short period of time before returning (also known as wardrobing or “free renting”)"

Its illegal. Thats what the sources say. The 2nd link is from a law firm. Your facts are wrong.

> https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/retur...

"Below are some common types of return fraud:

Wardrobing (or "renting"): Buying clothes or other items for one-time use and then returning them"

" For example, wardrobing may be next to impossible to prove"

https://www.allcriminaldefense.law/what-is-criminal-return-f...

"People that engage in ‘wardrobing’ or ‘free renting,’ are also committing return fraud."

https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/fraud-against-retaile...

" Return fraud

Renting or Wardrobing: When someone buys an item specifically on a short-term basis with the intent to return it, this is known as renting or wardrobing. An example is buying a dress for a special occasion and returning it after it has been worn."

https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/credit-cards/worn...

"Wardrobing might sound like an innocent thing to do—after all, many of us have returned something we've already worn at least once in our lives. But the truth is that wardrobing is actually considered "return fraud."

"It's technically illegal""

Again, you keep referencing links that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

- In a recent Florida case , a Miami socialite, Meghana Rajadhyaksha, was found guilty for purchasing over $130k in designer purses from retail giant TJ MAXX and also purchasing similar knock-offs from Amazon where she swapped the designer tags out and returned the Amazon knock-offs to TJ MAXX to receive a full refund.

I agree this is fraud! That's literally deceiving in order to receive money. There's nothing deceptive about using a policy that the store offers.

- The Florida statutes define return fraud as obtaining or using a receipt in a fraudulent manner

Ditto.

You're free to keep repeating that I have no idea what I'm talking about and so on, but at this point it's becoming quite boring for readers, and everything has been said. We simply agree to disagree, and that's that.

Now, please stop calling me a criminal. It's not nice, and it's also not accurate.

If you dig up a single case of someone being prosecuted for using a policy that the store offers, without modifying the receipt or the item, let me know.

I quoted you like 7 sources. (I editted it afterwords, sorry)

Read them again.

There are multiple sources, that I quoted, that literally say that it is illegal. They use the words illegal to describe wardrobing.

> Now, please stop calling me a criminal.

Well the sources say that you are a criminal.

One specifically said "It's technically illegal"

> We simply agree to disagree,

No. The lawyers say that you are wrong. The actual legal websites say that you are a criminal. They literally call it illegal.

Here was another quote "People that engage in ‘wardrobing’ or ‘free renting,’ are also committing return fraud."

Return fraud, in this quote, is referencing the Florida law.

I reject your sources and substitute my own: http://fashionlawwiki.pbworks.com/w/page/11611271/Wardrobing...

Although wardrobing is, arguably, unethical, there are no statutes or case law that specifically render it illegal. Whether wardrobing should even be considered an abuse of retail policies would depend on the retailers’ specific return policies. Some retailers welcome returns of clothing in any condition, therefore, one can hardly argue that the return of any item, in any condition is an abuse of that policy.

We can sit here and cite sources all day at each other, or you can find a case of someone being prosecuted for wardrobing. Once you do, I would be more than happy to listen and to change my mind on the issue.

In case it helps, I currently live in Seattle, and the story I related in my original comment happened in Boston, I believe. I'm also about to be moving back to Missouri. (You seem to be focusing on Florida for some reason, so I thought I'd give you a few trails to follow.)

> I reject your sources

So you don't care about what actual legal firms say?

I am giving you links to actual law firms!

You can't just say "well these 7 legal experts are wrong" and expect to be taken seriously.

> We can sit here and cite sources

Wtf dude. Sources and the legal experts and lawyers know more about this than you do.

If a bunch of law firms say that it is illegal, then clearly it is illegal in some places.

So, that means that we can call it fraud, because it is illegal is some places.

I bow out of this discussion since you are clearly looking for a fight, and seem to be having a bad day. I hope your day improves.

(Once more, I gave you information about (a) where I live, and therefore where the relevant laws are, and (b) pointed out that there are many, many citations saying that Wardrobing is an asshole move (as I said) but not illegal. That is my basis for rejecting your claims. It's not impossible to search the case law for someone being prosecuted for Wardrobing, and I encourage you to do so; if you find someone who has been convicted under any state law, I would be genuinely interested in hearing about it, since that would likely change my mind. Irrelevant sources, however, won't.)

This is equivalent of a thief arguing that they entered the victim's property because the doors were unlocked.

Yes, it is abuse.

> Was he abusing policy?

Yes. Here, abuse means misuse, which must be interpreted relative to the intent of the ones making the policy (or else it's meaningless). The intent is clear: for customers to be able to return the item if they are not satisfied. It is not a borrow/rental policy.

Those are different things. Taking advantage of a return "for any reason" policy is fine. Stealing money by lying about your identity is not okay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com