Hacker News Reader

Comment by Closi | Hacker News Reader

Electronics is certainly more of an issue - Nobody is shipping empty boxes of toilet paper.

The main issues you get are when returns are put back into stock but haven’t been sufficiently checked.

I used to work for an online retailer who sold things like games consoles and the amount of return scams we got was absolutely shocking. If you sold a games console with a free game (usually a code inside the console) people would take the game code out, or copy it, and then return the console and have the game. Other times they would take an iPad out, put a brick in the box and then shrink wrap it. Or buy counterfeit AirPod pro’s and swap them for the real ones and return the fakes.

The problem is compounded because people want to buy “new” items with shrink wrap around them, so it’s harder to check returns aren’t scams when the scammers have shrink-wrap machines.

View on HN

Off topic but I have seen interesting labels that break destructively.

If you could turn that into a ribbon, then any box could be wrapped in such a way any tampering is evident.

If you could also print a QR code on top, then you have a per shipment tamper proof

I suspect it exists but i am sure there is a long way between that and cost effective useage

Isn't it a basic consumer right to take items out of the packaging, try them, and then return them?

Absolutely.

The issue here is people returning it in a state where it is still sealed - as if an item is sealed it will go back into stock straight away and the retailer can’t open it up to check that it is in there.

If it’s opened you can still return it, but once that happens usually electronics have to be sent back to the manufacturer to refurbish/reset.

It’s not about stopping people returning items, it’s about making sure the correct returns channel is used and detecting fraud (which happens when people return the item pretending it’s unopened so it goes back into stock unchecked, but the item has been replaced with a brick).

Right, I didn't get that. But how often is an item returned without the box being opened by the customer?

Also, how does Amazon prove that the brick they received came from the customer and not some employee?

I can’t answer the first question, other than to say “often enough to have a process to handle it”.

As for the second one, with bin/lot tracking you can identify if the item had previously been returned. Employee theft doesn’t usually involve putting bricks in it within a DC - it’s usually easier and less risk to take the whole box (and maybe get rid of the packaging in the toilet, at a warehouse I used to work at someone was found to be stealing iPods because a lot of packaging was found behind a toilet ceiling tile). If the item hadn’t previously been returned, this would usually infer that the customer was lying about receiving it with a brick in it (although obviously there is the possibility that it came in that state from the supplier).

The usual assumption is that the supplier didn’t send it in with a brick, because otherwise customer fraud is too easy - but occasionally that assumption is wrong, which is probably what happened in this case.

They probably checked there was no return in the history, made the assumption it wouldn’t have come empty from Canon, and figured it was the customer that lied.

You are right - there are definitely things that can be done (what you are describing used to be done on Xbox games for example).

The main thing is making sure that these things are ubiquitous, that there isn’t a workaround and that systems are in place to do the specific checks which are different for each item at every return point.

In the example with the Xbox games, not all games had the seal, or the same game SKU might sometimes have the seal and sometimes have a standard case. Then there was the workaround where people could lever the case open at the top and still take the game out.

The danger of seals is sometimes they can provide a false sense of security, but they probably do help when implemented well.

The problem is not lack of tech, it’s that consumers are easier to attract to a platform than vendors so the rules tend to favor the vendors.

> Off topic but I have seen interesting labels that break destructively.

I don't know if it has been invented yet, however here's the idea: a RFID tag that normally returns a valid code, but any removal attempt would not simply destroy it, but rather change the code (for example through bit changes by peeling conductive parts of it) into one that would return a tamper warning at next readings. That would also make possible to track when the box was opened (therefore potentially also finding by whom) since all boxes must be scanned at every step. The tag however should be put in a place where the user would not stick a cutter blade; it should peel off for example as the result of pulling a string to open the box, removing a piece of cardboard, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com