Hacker News Reader

Comment by gambiting | Hacker News Reader

Thankfully EU and UK force companies to accept returns within 14 days of purchase(delivery to the customer in fact) for anything sold "remotely"(through internet, phone, by post.....anything where the customer couldn't inspect the item before buying) so companies cannot try to pull this nonsense like here. Refund only for in-store credit? I sympathize with the issues of fraud, but that's not an acceptable return policy for any company selling anything on the internet.

View on HN

Is the idea that companies should just eat an ever increasing proportion of fraud? I'm thankful that a blunt policy isn't enforced on companies where I'm from - as long as I know what the return policy is, I'm fine to make the decision whether it is acceptable for me or not.

The result of that policy will probably just be that European companies are under more fraud pressure and will go out of business sooner than companies that have more tools to combat fraud.

Having to accept returns doesn't mean having to accept return fraud, or things like returns without proof of purchase

(And interestingly, by TFA Amazon actually helps dealing with the frauds - though I'm thinking they should start engaging lawyers on this)

"the result of that policy" this is not a new thing, but yeah, please preach how some basic customer service is bad

Clearly one doesn't need to just accept return fraud. I'm not familiar enough with EU laws, but I'm assuming their consumer protection laws are a little stronger than a merchant just being allowed to unilaterally say "this is fraud, no refund for you".

If the company gets dragged in front of a tribunal, or needs to provide evidence, what could they do in the situations where someone received a normal item, pilfered it for replacement parts, and then sent back the rest. How could one show that this is fraud and not the company just sending out an incomplete product? I suppose they could just ban the customer(can they?), but dedicated fraudsters would have no problem using numerous fake identities in order to conduct their fraud.

The company can do whatever, the consumer or a consumer protection agency would then have to sue, so this is highly asymmetrical (against the consumer/fraudster) in the individual case.

A company trying to scam people like this by claiming return fraud would likely find itself in expensive hot water once the pattern became obvious though.

Avoiding the risk of having to deal with this is one of the reasons why people buy via Amazon (aside from convenience and fast+cheap shipping).

> what could they do in the situations where someone received a normal item, pilfered it for replacement parts, and then sent back the rest.

I imagine the manufacturer does some kind of QA, right? This seems like a pretty easy thing to prove. Sure, defective parts happen. But totally incomplete parts, that may be impossible in some cases, depending on the manufacturing process.

I think the problem is that the fraud has become essentially legal. Police is not interested in dealing with it, so fraudsters can do fraud to their heart's content without consequences.

I have reported fraud many times, even had fraudsters on camera and all their details, Police huffed and puffed and said they won't do anything and complaints got me nowhere.

If those companies go out of business, then ones willing to follow the rules will fill in the gaping void. :)

And they'll charge twice as much for everything to make up for the cost of fraud.

Then cheaper ones will fill in the gaping void, and they still have to play by the rules too. This isn't the car business where cost of entry is high.

Or the business will become unprofitable and no one will do it.

Where will the customers go to get their products?

I only know the Silca brand from a pump that I got for $5 at St. Vinnie's. There are dozens if not hundreds of bike pumps on Amazon and AliExpress, including many that seem like the same pump being sold under different brands like GOBUYMD and PROOGMEF. I imagine they manage their costs so they can afford to eat the returns. That's the future of retail.

If Silca goes out of business, someone will buy the brand, like Motobecane and Schwinn.

I got a good pump at Target. I was able to confirm that it works before buying.

> If Silca goes out of business, someone will buy the brand, like Motobecane and Schwinn.

This is what has already happened. Silca was an Italian brand that went out of business when the owner died.

Josh Portner (the guy behind using dimples to market Zipp wheels) bought them[1].

As far as I know all the pumps and other accessories are now made in Taiwan or China by contract manufacturers.

I have some of their stuff. It’s OK but no better than stuff from, say, Leyzne or Topeak.

I would wager it’s come from the same contract manufacturer.

1. I believe they were friends. There’s a nice write up of the story online. Came across as a personal project to continue the brand.

The black market, where the sellers won't give two fucks about the law and they'll force you to pay with something irreversible like cash or crypto.

That could actually be a win-win, since return fraudsters now have no method to do their work, and you have the opportunity to pay with anonymous methods.

Same thing here in Brazil, but for 7 days. That's a law from 1990, written when "remote buy" mean buying stuff by phone or catalog, but also generically written to allow future technologies. That's up for almost 32 years and have neither prevented online selling from happening nor made stuff unusually expensive nor made the e-commerce environment unprofitable.

I have returned items twice in the last five or so years (one was an obvious packaging error and for the other I'm was never sure if it was an innocent mistake or if the seller tried to scam me ... but the law worked as intended). And I buy online a lot and have no reason to believe other people's experiences are too much different from mine. It just seems the law worked in a societal level.

But I always try to be safe on my side: when receiving expensive products, I always record the unboxing in a full Dogme 95 style, filming from the labels on the sealed box down to serial numbers on the product. I never actually needed to use any of these videos, but if I got scammed for real I will have enough evidence for a lawsuit and stand my ground in the card company questions my chargeback.

Policies like that harm both dishonest companies and honest customers. Honest customers end up needing to pay more to cover the cost of fraud from dishonest customers.

We voluntarily have a 30-day return policy anyway instead of the required 14-day in the EU, but a lot of what the interviewee brings up rings painfully true.

I can't imagine 30 days makes much difference than 14 days from the perspective of a fraudster. Assuming they meant to do the fraud anyway, they probably want as fast turn around time as possible.

> Refund only for in-store credit?

They changed their policy, but this won't prevent chargebacks.

Anyone in the US who buys online with a credit card basically has up to 90 or even 180 day free returns.

They just need to say the magic words. Product misrepresented/defective, merchant won't respond, or I don't recognize the charge.

For example, they can poke a hole in the shirt they want to return and do it 1000% legally.

> Anyone in the US who buys online with a credit card basically has up to 90 or even 180 day free returns.

Except the average consumer rarely reverses charges. Someone doing this regularly is going to stand out and will get legal attention.

> For example, they can poke a hole in the shirt they want to return and do it 1000% legally.

Except now they’ve damaged the good. Will they wear the shirt with the hole?

Thankfully the US doesn't force small businesses to run their business according to lawmakers' preferences for return policies. If a prospective customer doesn't like the return policy they are free to spend their money elsewhere and the market will decide whether the policy is good for business.

How has the "market will decide" worked out for American society over the decades?

On the one hand your country is so great they don't force small businesses to run their business according to lawmakers' preferences for return policies.

On the other hand your own citizens scam the businesses over there.

You're in between a rock and a hard place.

As long as people have the attitude to commit fraud, they would. Maybe it's time to take a few steps back and try to understand why people do this?

So you’re trying to regulate morality?

How common is similar fraud in the UK and EU?

It may or may not be similar, but the sellers have to suck it up either way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com