Refund Fraud Schemes Promoted Online Are Costing Amazon and Other Retailers Billions 52
Refund fraud groups are exploiting lenient refund policies, resulting in significant losses for retailers like Amazon and prompting civil lawsuits and arrests. The scheme has become so pervasive that groups now market their services on Reddit, TikTok and Telegram. CNBC reports: Fraud groups are taking advantage of retailers' lenient return policies, experts told CNBC, which often include unlimited free returns and sometimes even a preference that customers keep the items. It's ballooned into a massive problem for retailers, costing them more than $101 billion last year, according to a survey by the National Retail Federation and Appriss Retail. The figure includes multiple forms of fraud, such as sending back clothing after it's been worn, known as "wardrobing," and returning shoplifted merchandise, the survey said.
In December, Amazon filed a lawsuit against Page and 47 other people across the globe with alleged ties to Rekk, accusing them of conspiring to steal millions of dollars worth of products in a refund fraud operation. Amazon described these services as "illegitimate 'businesses'" that look to "exploit the refund process for their own financial gain to the detriment of honest consumers and retailers who must bear the brunt of increased costs, decreased inventory, and service disruption that impacts genuine customers." An Amazon spokesperson said the company is addressing the issue "head on" through specialized teams and machine learning tools that detect and prevent refund fraud.
Here's how it works: A shopper buys a product online and sends the order information to a group such as Rekk, which then poses as the customer in requesting a refund. Amazon refunds the money to the customer, who then pays the fraud group usually between 15% and 30% of the refund amount, often via PayPal or with bitcoin. That means the customer ends up buying the product for what amounts to a huge discount. The fraud group then pays the conspiring employee at the retailer, typically a certain amount for a batch of packages the employee scans as returned.
In December, Amazon filed a lawsuit against Page and 47 other people across the globe with alleged ties to Rekk, accusing them of conspiring to steal millions of dollars worth of products in a refund fraud operation. Amazon described these services as "illegitimate 'businesses'" that look to "exploit the refund process for their own financial gain to the detriment of honest consumers and retailers who must bear the brunt of increased costs, decreased inventory, and service disruption that impacts genuine customers." An Amazon spokesperson said the company is addressing the issue "head on" through specialized teams and machine learning tools that detect and prevent refund fraud.
Here's how it works: A shopper buys a product online and sends the order information to a group such as Rekk, which then poses as the customer in requesting a refund. Amazon refunds the money to the customer, who then pays the fraud group usually between 15% and 30% of the refund amount, often via PayPal or with bitcoin. That means the customer ends up buying the product for what amounts to a huge discount. The fraud group then pays the conspiring employee at the retailer, typically a certain amount for a batch of packages the employee scans as returned.
Force biz registration, too much riff-raff (Score:2)
The gov't tracks the hell out of individuals because we allegedly are too likely to be terrorists or some other boogiePerson. However, businesses come and go with seemingly zero scrutiny, ripping millions of people and biz's off, and spamming us up the wazoo.
Any biz that does interstate commerce should be required to register, and verify the identity of the owners. Overseas companies lacking a local inspection branch have to post a bond.
Wash. DC is focusing on the wrong "border".
Re: (Score:2)
Hooray?
Re: (Score:2)
If you've made at least $20,000 in gross sales and exceeded 200 transactions for goods* on eBay in 2023, you will receive a tax Form 1099-K for all your 2023 sales transactions.
If you live in a council flat... next to a river... but are not blind...
Re: (Score:1)
Then why are all these spammers and robocallers slipping thru the cracks?
Re: (Score:2)
Looking for patterns? (Score:2)
It sounds like these retailers have a problem finding the frauds among the legitimate consumers. I can't think of any technological solutions, and there's no market for new products that businesses can sell each other.
Let's just stop this whole "allowing returns" thing and cry our way to civil court?
Re:Looking for patterns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Throttle returns? (Score:2)
Amazon probably should throttle returns. If a customer returns too often or too much (price threshold) per year, then charge a return fee, perhaps graduated so that one's fee per item is dependent on return frequency.
Re: (Score:3)
Target started doing that a number of years ago, seemed to help until they found a lot of people's kids coming in to return something. Don't know what they did after that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tricky problem. The more you restrict returns, the less you're going to sell. Remember, the customer is buying something sight unseen and will only tolerate that risk because they know it can be returned if there's a problem. If that goes away, those sketchy Chinese products with the huge margins will be a much harder sell.
Re: (Score:1)
I do think the customer should have some skin in the game. The penalty for a "normal rate" of returns would be small or non-existent. And clothing probably should have a bigger allowance since sizing is everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: Retailer throttles returns and charges a return fee based on how many returns a customer requests.
Workaround: Customers create a whole new account and identity each time they order.
New problem: Retailer is unable to track customer preferences. Recommendations are meaningless. Product reviews become completely useless. A more horrible shopping experience for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know if they lost or not, there is a cost, sure. If that cost is more than they made is not stated in the article. They are always going to complain that they lost money.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon gambled, and won actually. The amount of fraud that they have isn't that much different than a brick and mortar retailer. My wife worked at Target for a long time, she has a ton of stories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many valid reasons for returns, taking amazon to court especially if you are in another country is not feasible. It would cost thousands just to take it to court.
Although it may cost these company combined billions, it would cost them even more if people took them to court for every valid return they made.
What would likely happen is of course most people wouldn't bother, and you would get scammers selling bad products on amazon and knowing most people wouldn't be bothered getting a refund.
Billions
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What did they think would happen? (Score:2)
Amazon and others routinely don't ask you to return an item you "return" for a refund. They just tell you to keep it. They say it's too expensive to process returns.
Well, maybe it's true that it's expensive to process returns. But people aren't dumb. If you don't ask for the returned item to be...returned, now they have something they can resell. Even the most ethical people might resort to this as a way to unload unwanted stuff. The less ethical will brazenly order stuff they don't want, "return" it, then
Re: (Score:3)
They must have the billions to spare, if they prefer letting it happen instead of tightening inventory control.
I wonder if getting to play the victim doesn't fulfill some psychological need with them, in addition to the PR effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The decision to require a return of the item or not is the decision of the vendor, not necessarily Amazon. Depending on how much fraud they've historically seen a lot of companies don't find it worthwhile to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you that the one making the decision, is the one taking the financial hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Two thirds of the goods sold on Amazon (the only platform that I know intimately) are sold by third parties. If an item needs to be returned Amazon will charge for that service, the same way they charge to sell it. If the physical item doesn't need to be handled and/or shipped the charge will be less. It's the vendor who is deciding whether it's worth the trouble to get the thing back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking in terms of some guy working the system. That's not how this happens. These guys set up myriads of shopping bots, each with a separate account. They don't care if the bot account gets shut down, they just create 10 more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon will ask for the thing back if it has any significant value
No, they don't seem to use the value of the item in deciding whether to ask for it back. I've personally "returned" the following items, and Amazon told me not to send them back:
- An $80 bottle of perfume
- A $200 patio table
- A $150 shower chair
The decision seems to be based on other factors besides price, as far as I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite many "yes, we've fixed it" responses from Amazon support they keep auto-billing and sending us coffee capsules that we don't want, need or can use.
Just return them. It's free.
Re: What about Amazon's fraud? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiring employee at the retailer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also 101 billion a year is pure cop math. It's suspiciously close to several already discredited figures related to shoplifting..
And one last thing remember nobody's going to cut their prices because this kind of theft stops. Why the hell would they they've already shown that you're willing to buy at those prices. The only other risk would be Amazon going out of business and I'm not going to hold my breath for that.
Meanwhile there's tens of billions of dollars in wage theft going on but that's left to generally powerless regulators. You never see the cops pull up and arrest some schmuck that runs a crappy restaurant and hasn't been paying his employees. If you're damn lucky somebody from the labor department without a bad shows up and most of the time the employees who got their wages stolen just get a letter from the labor board telling them that they don't have the resources to go after the perp.
Meanwhile all that money just kind of evaporates from your community
Re: (Score:2)
This isnt new (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Costco doesn't make money from selling products, they make money from selling memberships.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why Costco is still in business.
It just means you do not understand how the retail industry works. Coz they are absolutely killing it and have a rabid fan following, which is the envy of most other retailers
Re: This isnt new (Score:2)
If a Company Defrauds You (Score:2)
You are free to hire a lawyer at your own expense, likely to be told that you have no right to sue due to a clause buried in the fine print. And despite the fact the you received no consideration for giving up your rights, cannot sue anyway. If you somehow manage to win the suit, the whole thing never leaves CIVIL court. Everyone in the company will remain free, and they will prosper. Their freedom will never be at risk. They will not even have to admit guilt.
If you defraud a company, however, the govern
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, this is just capitalism and class warfare as usual.
"I won't track my business effectively..." (Score:2)
Pay for enough labor to truly track what is going on or not, and you won't deal with that problem. Keep giving your employees terrible working conditions and they'll continue to "extract value as appropriate". Capitalism at its best.
Pays 0 tax but wants 100% of the benefits (Score:5, Insightful)