We don’t disagree with you but if Amazon took the time to test every item returned with the reason of defective, sellers should expect Amazon to raise sellers fees to cover that extra payroll cost to Amazon. Amazon could use the existing employees to inspect items but that would slow down the already slow process of putting new inventory from FBA sellers into their fillable inventory. Do sellers really want higher fees so Amazon can inspect and test everything that is returned as defective?

In many cases, it is impossible to determine whether a returned product is damaged or defective without being intimately familiar with that product. Time after time, we’re seeing returned products being put back into active inventory when the product “looks okay” from the outside but has in fact been altered or is missing parts or, in an increasing number of cases, has actually been switched out with an entirely different product. This is a problem that would not be solved by engaging even a specialized team or third-party service which, in many cases, would be no better equipped than the warehouse to identify these problems. The only workable solution I see is to allow sellers to opt for automatic removal of their returns. In my experience, Amazon has been relatively good about reimbursing for damaged returns once they’re removed and reasonable proof is provided. My bigger concern is the damaged inventory that routinely gets put back into the “active” bin and resold to other customers.

Your point about Amazon reimbursing shipping costs for customers who falsely report merchandise as damaged or defective is well taken. Even where Amazon subsequently determines the item to be sellable (a tacit admission that the customer has lied), it generally does nothing to recoup the shipping costs that were refunded to the customer at our expense. This is true even though this practice runs counter to Amazon’s own customer return policies. In my view, those policies, together with Amazon’s fiduciary role in holding and managing seller-owned funds, create a reasonable expectation on the part of sellers that Amazon will comply with its own rules and not use seller accounts as a multi-purpose slush fund for enhancing its own relationship with customers.