New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
To charge a restocking fee:
- Go to Orders.
- Click Manage returns and select your order.
- Click Issue refund.
- Click Charge restocking fee on the Refund orders page.
You can now grade the condition of the returned item. On the Charge restocking fee page, select a description from the drop-down, upload a photo, and provide more detail in the comments text box.
This information will allow us to confirm that the item wasn’t returned in its original condition. It will also help us to understand customer behavior so that we can protect you and other sellers from future returns issues.
To learn more, go to Issue a partial refund
New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
To charge a restocking fee:
- Go to Orders.
- Click Manage returns and select your order.
- Click Issue refund.
- Click Charge restocking fee on the Refund orders page.
You can now grade the condition of the returned item. On the Charge restocking fee page, select a description from the drop-down, upload a photo, and provide more detail in the comments text box.
This information will allow us to confirm that the item wasn’t returned in its original condition. It will also help us to understand customer behavior so that we can protect you and other sellers from future returns issues.
To learn more, go to Issue a partial refund
115 replies
Seller_NpCTTKHemfADL
So does this mean you are getting rid of Return at First Scan?
If not how will this be addressed? As RFS will always refund the buyer in full if buyer uses a seller faulted reason to avoid paying for return labels.
Seller_2UQL96K7Patvu
Nice. But, this has been around for awhile. At least for me it has.
Seller_0ceakZ4Ra5ZUs
How is this new? Was like this for over a year
Seller_5DrrKeHsDwIGT
you need to do a better policy. The restocking fee I might start doing that.
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
"New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues"
Way to bury the lede here, Amazon!
What Amazon describes is NOT NEW at all when dealing with items Returned in "Materially Different Condition". This ability to issue a partial Refund in those cases already existed.
What Amazon FAILS to highlight is that the Seller can now ONLY charge Restocking Fees IF the product is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
THIS IS THE ACTUAL NEW CHANGE: Amazon NOW EXPRESSLY FORBIDS withholding ANY Restocking Fees on items Returned in original condition.
This is a CHANGE to existing policy, and this change was executed with ZERO announcements nor any input from those affected BY the change.
For example, until now the Seller could withhold 20% of the item cost from the Refund as "Restocking Fees". It WAS a posted Amazon policy, and the amount of withholding depended on the product, NOT ONLY the product condition.
NOT ANY MORE!
So, what ARE "Restocking Fees" anyway?
RESTOCK: verb (used with or without object) - to stock again; replenish.
FEE: noun - a charge or payment for professional services.
Restocking Fees have a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS meaning in the English language, and PRODUCT CONDITION has NOTHING to do with this meaning. Restocking Fees exist because the Seller has absorbed Expenses when originally executing their part of the contracted order, and these expenses would otherwise be LOST income for the Seller.
Could it simply be that Amazon no longer understands how to use a dictionary?
By their very definition, Restocking Fees are EXACTLY THAT: The Costs involved with accepting a Return and Restocking it back into inventory. Restocking Fees are an attempt to (at least partially) recoup the EXPENSES ALREADY LOST when the Seller processed the order.
These expenses include the gasoline involved in the transit of the item and package, the cost of packaging materials, the cost of labor to retrieve and process the order, and the labor cost in processing the Return and returning the item back to inventory. These costs are significant and occur EVEN IF the item is Returned in the Same Condition as when shipped.
What Amazon NOW considers to be "Restocking Fees" are ACTUALLY Partial Refunds issued on items Returned in Materially Different Condition from how they were when originally shipped.
This "NEW" policy is also thwarted by the existing RFS policy, which refunds orders under $100.00 when the Return shipping label is first scanned by the Return carrier. So, there is that contradiction to be dealt with as well.
To be clear: the availability for Sellers to issue Partial Refunds in situations such as this is NOT NEW, and has existed for at LEAST as long as I have been selling here.
What IS new is that 3rd Party Sellers are NOW expected to ABSORB all of the ACTUAL Restocking Fees on Buyer Error based Returns UNLESS the item is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
The irony is that IF the item IS Returned in "Materially Different Condition", than it almost certainly can NOT be "Restocked" and "Resold", ESPECIALLY on Amazon. So IF you can NOT "Restock" it, than HOW can you charge "Restocking Fees"?
The ONLY Good Thing that the change is policy provides is that NOW, the Seller need no longer fear Negative Feedback for the Authorized Withholding of legitimate Restocking Fees on Returns based on Buyer error, since the Seller can NO LONGER withhold valid Restocking Fees.
No Restocking Fees withheld = No Negative Feedback for withholding Restocking Fees.
It SURE doesn't feel like an improvement, does it?
Amazon, as usual, you have taken a perfectly working system and DESTROYED it for no good reason.
Your platform is already the world's largest. People already use Amazon for purchases. YOU DID NOT NEED TO MAKE THIS POLICY CHANGE!
Your NEW actions have now made it markedly easier for Bad Actors to steal from 3rd Party Sellers by abusing the Amazon Return system, ESPECIALLY the since initiating the "Refund at First Scan" policy.
Worse, this NEW change to the existing Restocking Fees policy makes it actually possible for competitors to slowly bleed their competition by arranging for a continual series of orders and returns, causing a continual LOSS of funds to the original Seller. How did no one consider that?
AND Amazon will STILL not remove Negative Feedback received EVEN IN CASES where a partial Refund was issued precisely BECAUSE the item was Returned in "Materially Different Condition" and fees were withheld PER AMAZON POLICY.
So WHERE is the Seller Protection?
In THIS case, it is GONE!
To all Amazon employees, ask yourself this question: Why does Amazon continue to Strip-Away the very Seller protections that Amazon USED to offer? What is the goal here, to convince 3rd Party Sellers that Amazon is NOT a "Safe Place" to Sell products?
Because THAT is the message MANY of us are receiving from Amazon!
And I truly WISH it was not the case! I long for the "Good old days" of a few years back when Amazon ACTUALLY protected their 3rd Party Sellers.
Are those days Gone Forever?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Either I don't understand you, or until now Amazon had different protocols for different items or sellers.
In my case, most returns were refunded by Amazon after the first scam, and I did not have to do anything.
The only option to get a partial refund was by opening safe -t.
The way I understand the new policy/news is that from now on, It will be my responsibility to refund each return after examining it.
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I think you don't understand. Amazon USED to have specific protocols in-place that established the clear guidelines for how much you can withhold from the Refund under what circumstances.
Amazon has CHANGED these posted guidelines, but I still have the originals saved as jpegs. If I could figure out how to embed a jpeg in a Forum post I could display these guidelines for all to see.
Know NOW that Amazon had CHANGED these posted guidelines. The MOST important change is this: Amazon has REMOVED the ability to charge up to 20% Restocking Fees for items returned "within the Return Window" IF they are Returned in Undamaged condition, and Amazon has ADDED the ability for the Buyer to Return the item AFTER the Return window has closed. See below copied from Amazon just now:
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition within the return window.
Restocking Fee: No restocking fee.
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition outside of the return window
Restocking Fee: Yes. Up to 20% of item’s price.
*The buyer changes their mind and returns the item for one of the following reasons:
Accidental order
Better price available
No longer needed/wanted
So, not only has Amazon REMOVED our ability to charge up to 20% for Actual Restocking, but it has also allowed Buyers to INDEFINITELY DELAY the Return of the item and STILL receive 80% of their purchase as a Refund (or more).
These NEW guidelines do NOT show ANY "Expiration Date" for a Return to be accepted by the Seller, as long as the Buyer initiates a Return within the window provided by Amazon and print-out the Return label.
Amazon has NOW stated in writing that IF the Seller receives back a Return OUTSIDE of the Return Window, the Seller MUST accept the Return and issue a minimum of an 80% Refund.
And they have NOT specified ANY exceptions or expiration date.
So, a savvy Buyer could initiate a Return for everything they buy and keep the label on-file in case the item ever lowers in price or they decide to "Change their mind".
Does no one at Amazon EVER consider the unintended consequences of their decisions? Or how they can be manipulated to defraud 3rd Party Sellers? Apparently not...
So, based on your reading of this policy, you are saying that RFS is NO LONGER being applied?
No, uyou are mistaken. This is NOT the case. RFS is STILl being applied on Amazon. I JUST had an RFS applied to me 2 days ago. I wait in trepidation as to what I will receive back from the Buyer, and in what condition, but Amazon has already given them the Refund, so I am NO LONGER ABLE to follow the "New" Posted Policy for this particular Return.
For the record, RFS is still a thing. This means that this "New" policy only applies to Returns that are NOT Refunded at First Scan. You would THINK that the posted policy would address this, right?
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE FOR ORDERS THAT AMAZON REFUNDS AT FIRST SCAN.
IF the item WAS RFS'ed, the Seller can ONLY file a Safe-T Claim, and HOPE to "Win" back at LEAST the postage they had to pay for the original shipment, let alone the Return postage or ANY reasonable fees for Returning it in "Materially Different Condition".
Amazon... Get your story straight and your facts in-order. HOW does a Seller charge a Restocking Fee on an order that has been RFS'ed?
Anyone else see the conflict?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
So, does the news applies only to items that "skipped" the RFS because of high value, or that amazon missed them?
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I am not sure what criteria Amazon uses to apply the RFS and when to withhold the RFS.
At first, I believed they would RFS anything less than $100.00, but I just had 2 Returns of less than $100.00 that were NOT RFS'ed.
And 1 Return that was less than $100.00 and WAS RFS'ed, a week after the first two were received back.
So, I cannot ascertain the internal "Logic" Amazon uses to determine WHICH Returns get RFS and which are left to US to Refund.
You would THINK that Amazon would make this CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS, right?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Yes, it was/is $100, and this is how it was for me.
Since Amazon is not a good communicator, it could be that the RFS depends also on the buyer's history of returns...
We are allowed to guess !.
Seller_FaV5Qh0z4BM3s
Excellent post! I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I could "like" it a thousand times.
Seller_myoB69lOiJNbe
You nailed it! Amazon has been doing a lot of changes that sellers get confused. And...recently, I received an RFS and buyer was fully refunded even it is not my fault that the given address was non-deliverable. Tried to file a claim just for the postage and the support told me to file a claim with my carrier. The shipping label has been scanned and made it's way to the address given by Amazon but returned to our facility due to address non-deliverable. Shipping cost has been lost on my end and the buyer who gave a non-deliverable address got their money back.
Amazon should make sure all the addresses given are legit and deliverable. It is not the seller's fault the orders are not received. What a waste!
Seller_nx8v7SMEX2ZBv
This guy asks me to cancel an order hours after i shipped . then he asks to cancel again after the tracking says it was at the post office and he picked it up . now he saying he cant do a return to refund him. whats wrong with these ppl they get away with this too often im not doing it refuse cancel due to shipped advise to call amazon customer service to walk through return. still asks to cancel and refund smh. shipping bought through amazon
Seller_FSJQSK8dDFpH2
Any protection against negative feedback retaliation for charging a restocking fee?
Are the automated refunds ending? How do we charge a fee when the customer is already refunded?
Seller_kWzASERYhgus6
I don't restock damaged, used merchandise.
My customers are refunded immediately on first scan, a program I cannot opt out of.
This is not news, it is nonsense.
Shocker.
Seller_2ocdeVST6pSqj
so return at first scan is no longer in place? this needs to be clarified!
Seller_wnc1pjYEF5ZqF
Amazon finally recognizing that return abuse and fraud is at an all time high. 2023 has been the worst year for fraudulent returns I've dealt with in over a decade of online selling. Amazon made it too easy for customers to just return used junk or something entirely different with a different serial number and get a full refund. Even the honest customers are emboldened now, because they all know there's no consequence.
New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
To charge a restocking fee:
- Go to Orders.
- Click Manage returns and select your order.
- Click Issue refund.
- Click Charge restocking fee on the Refund orders page.
You can now grade the condition of the returned item. On the Charge restocking fee page, select a description from the drop-down, upload a photo, and provide more detail in the comments text box.
This information will allow us to confirm that the item wasn’t returned in its original condition. It will also help us to understand customer behavior so that we can protect you and other sellers from future returns issues.
To learn more, go to Issue a partial refund
New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
To charge a restocking fee:
- Go to Orders.
- Click Manage returns and select your order.
- Click Issue refund.
- Click Charge restocking fee on the Refund orders page.
You can now grade the condition of the returned item. On the Charge restocking fee page, select a description from the drop-down, upload a photo, and provide more detail in the comments text box.
This information will allow us to confirm that the item wasn’t returned in its original condition. It will also help us to understand customer behavior so that we can protect you and other sellers from future returns issues.
To learn more, go to Issue a partial refund
New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
To charge a restocking fee:
- Go to Orders.
- Click Manage returns and select your order.
- Click Issue refund.
- Click Charge restocking fee on the Refund orders page.
You can now grade the condition of the returned item. On the Charge restocking fee page, select a description from the drop-down, upload a photo, and provide more detail in the comments text box.
This information will allow us to confirm that the item wasn’t returned in its original condition. It will also help us to understand customer behavior so that we can protect you and other sellers from future returns issues.
To learn more, go to Issue a partial refund
115 replies
115 replies
Seller_NpCTTKHemfADL
So does this mean you are getting rid of Return at First Scan?
If not how will this be addressed? As RFS will always refund the buyer in full if buyer uses a seller faulted reason to avoid paying for return labels.
Seller_2UQL96K7Patvu
Nice. But, this has been around for awhile. At least for me it has.
Seller_0ceakZ4Ra5ZUs
How is this new? Was like this for over a year
Seller_5DrrKeHsDwIGT
you need to do a better policy. The restocking fee I might start doing that.
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
"New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues"
Way to bury the lede here, Amazon!
What Amazon describes is NOT NEW at all when dealing with items Returned in "Materially Different Condition". This ability to issue a partial Refund in those cases already existed.
What Amazon FAILS to highlight is that the Seller can now ONLY charge Restocking Fees IF the product is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
THIS IS THE ACTUAL NEW CHANGE: Amazon NOW EXPRESSLY FORBIDS withholding ANY Restocking Fees on items Returned in original condition.
This is a CHANGE to existing policy, and this change was executed with ZERO announcements nor any input from those affected BY the change.
For example, until now the Seller could withhold 20% of the item cost from the Refund as "Restocking Fees". It WAS a posted Amazon policy, and the amount of withholding depended on the product, NOT ONLY the product condition.
NOT ANY MORE!
So, what ARE "Restocking Fees" anyway?
RESTOCK: verb (used with or without object) - to stock again; replenish.
FEE: noun - a charge or payment for professional services.
Restocking Fees have a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS meaning in the English language, and PRODUCT CONDITION has NOTHING to do with this meaning. Restocking Fees exist because the Seller has absorbed Expenses when originally executing their part of the contracted order, and these expenses would otherwise be LOST income for the Seller.
Could it simply be that Amazon no longer understands how to use a dictionary?
By their very definition, Restocking Fees are EXACTLY THAT: The Costs involved with accepting a Return and Restocking it back into inventory. Restocking Fees are an attempt to (at least partially) recoup the EXPENSES ALREADY LOST when the Seller processed the order.
These expenses include the gasoline involved in the transit of the item and package, the cost of packaging materials, the cost of labor to retrieve and process the order, and the labor cost in processing the Return and returning the item back to inventory. These costs are significant and occur EVEN IF the item is Returned in the Same Condition as when shipped.
What Amazon NOW considers to be "Restocking Fees" are ACTUALLY Partial Refunds issued on items Returned in Materially Different Condition from how they were when originally shipped.
This "NEW" policy is also thwarted by the existing RFS policy, which refunds orders under $100.00 when the Return shipping label is first scanned by the Return carrier. So, there is that contradiction to be dealt with as well.
To be clear: the availability for Sellers to issue Partial Refunds in situations such as this is NOT NEW, and has existed for at LEAST as long as I have been selling here.
What IS new is that 3rd Party Sellers are NOW expected to ABSORB all of the ACTUAL Restocking Fees on Buyer Error based Returns UNLESS the item is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
The irony is that IF the item IS Returned in "Materially Different Condition", than it almost certainly can NOT be "Restocked" and "Resold", ESPECIALLY on Amazon. So IF you can NOT "Restock" it, than HOW can you charge "Restocking Fees"?
The ONLY Good Thing that the change is policy provides is that NOW, the Seller need no longer fear Negative Feedback for the Authorized Withholding of legitimate Restocking Fees on Returns based on Buyer error, since the Seller can NO LONGER withhold valid Restocking Fees.
No Restocking Fees withheld = No Negative Feedback for withholding Restocking Fees.
It SURE doesn't feel like an improvement, does it?
Amazon, as usual, you have taken a perfectly working system and DESTROYED it for no good reason.
Your platform is already the world's largest. People already use Amazon for purchases. YOU DID NOT NEED TO MAKE THIS POLICY CHANGE!
Your NEW actions have now made it markedly easier for Bad Actors to steal from 3rd Party Sellers by abusing the Amazon Return system, ESPECIALLY the since initiating the "Refund at First Scan" policy.
Worse, this NEW change to the existing Restocking Fees policy makes it actually possible for competitors to slowly bleed their competition by arranging for a continual series of orders and returns, causing a continual LOSS of funds to the original Seller. How did no one consider that?
AND Amazon will STILL not remove Negative Feedback received EVEN IN CASES where a partial Refund was issued precisely BECAUSE the item was Returned in "Materially Different Condition" and fees were withheld PER AMAZON POLICY.
So WHERE is the Seller Protection?
In THIS case, it is GONE!
To all Amazon employees, ask yourself this question: Why does Amazon continue to Strip-Away the very Seller protections that Amazon USED to offer? What is the goal here, to convince 3rd Party Sellers that Amazon is NOT a "Safe Place" to Sell products?
Because THAT is the message MANY of us are receiving from Amazon!
And I truly WISH it was not the case! I long for the "Good old days" of a few years back when Amazon ACTUALLY protected their 3rd Party Sellers.
Are those days Gone Forever?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Either I don't understand you, or until now Amazon had different protocols for different items or sellers.
In my case, most returns were refunded by Amazon after the first scam, and I did not have to do anything.
The only option to get a partial refund was by opening safe -t.
The way I understand the new policy/news is that from now on, It will be my responsibility to refund each return after examining it.
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I think you don't understand. Amazon USED to have specific protocols in-place that established the clear guidelines for how much you can withhold from the Refund under what circumstances.
Amazon has CHANGED these posted guidelines, but I still have the originals saved as jpegs. If I could figure out how to embed a jpeg in a Forum post I could display these guidelines for all to see.
Know NOW that Amazon had CHANGED these posted guidelines. The MOST important change is this: Amazon has REMOVED the ability to charge up to 20% Restocking Fees for items returned "within the Return Window" IF they are Returned in Undamaged condition, and Amazon has ADDED the ability for the Buyer to Return the item AFTER the Return window has closed. See below copied from Amazon just now:
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition within the return window.
Restocking Fee: No restocking fee.
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition outside of the return window
Restocking Fee: Yes. Up to 20% of item’s price.
*The buyer changes their mind and returns the item for one of the following reasons:
Accidental order
Better price available
No longer needed/wanted
So, not only has Amazon REMOVED our ability to charge up to 20% for Actual Restocking, but it has also allowed Buyers to INDEFINITELY DELAY the Return of the item and STILL receive 80% of their purchase as a Refund (or more).
These NEW guidelines do NOT show ANY "Expiration Date" for a Return to be accepted by the Seller, as long as the Buyer initiates a Return within the window provided by Amazon and print-out the Return label.
Amazon has NOW stated in writing that IF the Seller receives back a Return OUTSIDE of the Return Window, the Seller MUST accept the Return and issue a minimum of an 80% Refund.
And they have NOT specified ANY exceptions or expiration date.
So, a savvy Buyer could initiate a Return for everything they buy and keep the label on-file in case the item ever lowers in price or they decide to "Change their mind".
Does no one at Amazon EVER consider the unintended consequences of their decisions? Or how they can be manipulated to defraud 3rd Party Sellers? Apparently not...
So, based on your reading of this policy, you are saying that RFS is NO LONGER being applied?
No, uyou are mistaken. This is NOT the case. RFS is STILl being applied on Amazon. I JUST had an RFS applied to me 2 days ago. I wait in trepidation as to what I will receive back from the Buyer, and in what condition, but Amazon has already given them the Refund, so I am NO LONGER ABLE to follow the "New" Posted Policy for this particular Return.
For the record, RFS is still a thing. This means that this "New" policy only applies to Returns that are NOT Refunded at First Scan. You would THINK that the posted policy would address this, right?
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE FOR ORDERS THAT AMAZON REFUNDS AT FIRST SCAN.
IF the item WAS RFS'ed, the Seller can ONLY file a Safe-T Claim, and HOPE to "Win" back at LEAST the postage they had to pay for the original shipment, let alone the Return postage or ANY reasonable fees for Returning it in "Materially Different Condition".
Amazon... Get your story straight and your facts in-order. HOW does a Seller charge a Restocking Fee on an order that has been RFS'ed?
Anyone else see the conflict?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
So, does the news applies only to items that "skipped" the RFS because of high value, or that amazon missed them?
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I am not sure what criteria Amazon uses to apply the RFS and when to withhold the RFS.
At first, I believed they would RFS anything less than $100.00, but I just had 2 Returns of less than $100.00 that were NOT RFS'ed.
And 1 Return that was less than $100.00 and WAS RFS'ed, a week after the first two were received back.
So, I cannot ascertain the internal "Logic" Amazon uses to determine WHICH Returns get RFS and which are left to US to Refund.
You would THINK that Amazon would make this CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS, right?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Yes, it was/is $100, and this is how it was for me.
Since Amazon is not a good communicator, it could be that the RFS depends also on the buyer's history of returns...
We are allowed to guess !.
Seller_FaV5Qh0z4BM3s
Excellent post! I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I could "like" it a thousand times.
Seller_myoB69lOiJNbe
You nailed it! Amazon has been doing a lot of changes that sellers get confused. And...recently, I received an RFS and buyer was fully refunded even it is not my fault that the given address was non-deliverable. Tried to file a claim just for the postage and the support told me to file a claim with my carrier. The shipping label has been scanned and made it's way to the address given by Amazon but returned to our facility due to address non-deliverable. Shipping cost has been lost on my end and the buyer who gave a non-deliverable address got their money back.
Amazon should make sure all the addresses given are legit and deliverable. It is not the seller's fault the orders are not received. What a waste!
Seller_nx8v7SMEX2ZBv
This guy asks me to cancel an order hours after i shipped . then he asks to cancel again after the tracking says it was at the post office and he picked it up . now he saying he cant do a return to refund him. whats wrong with these ppl they get away with this too often im not doing it refuse cancel due to shipped advise to call amazon customer service to walk through return. still asks to cancel and refund smh. shipping bought through amazon
Seller_FSJQSK8dDFpH2
Any protection against negative feedback retaliation for charging a restocking fee?
Are the automated refunds ending? How do we charge a fee when the customer is already refunded?
Seller_kWzASERYhgus6
I don't restock damaged, used merchandise.
My customers are refunded immediately on first scan, a program I cannot opt out of.
This is not news, it is nonsense.
Shocker.
Seller_2ocdeVST6pSqj
so return at first scan is no longer in place? this needs to be clarified!
Seller_wnc1pjYEF5ZqF
Amazon finally recognizing that return abuse and fraud is at an all time high. 2023 has been the worst year for fraudulent returns I've dealt with in over a decade of online selling. Amazon made it too easy for customers to just return used junk or something entirely different with a different serial number and get a full refund. Even the honest customers are emboldened now, because they all know there's no consequence.
Seller_NpCTTKHemfADL
So does this mean you are getting rid of Return at First Scan?
If not how will this be addressed? As RFS will always refund the buyer in full if buyer uses a seller faulted reason to avoid paying for return labels.
Seller_NpCTTKHemfADL
So does this mean you are getting rid of Return at First Scan?
If not how will this be addressed? As RFS will always refund the buyer in full if buyer uses a seller faulted reason to avoid paying for return labels.
Seller_2UQL96K7Patvu
Nice. But, this has been around for awhile. At least for me it has.
Seller_2UQL96K7Patvu
Nice. But, this has been around for awhile. At least for me it has.
Seller_0ceakZ4Ra5ZUs
How is this new? Was like this for over a year
Seller_0ceakZ4Ra5ZUs
How is this new? Was like this for over a year
Seller_5DrrKeHsDwIGT
you need to do a better policy. The restocking fee I might start doing that.
Seller_5DrrKeHsDwIGT
you need to do a better policy. The restocking fee I might start doing that.
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
"New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues"
Way to bury the lede here, Amazon!
What Amazon describes is NOT NEW at all when dealing with items Returned in "Materially Different Condition". This ability to issue a partial Refund in those cases already existed.
What Amazon FAILS to highlight is that the Seller can now ONLY charge Restocking Fees IF the product is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
THIS IS THE ACTUAL NEW CHANGE: Amazon NOW EXPRESSLY FORBIDS withholding ANY Restocking Fees on items Returned in original condition.
This is a CHANGE to existing policy, and this change was executed with ZERO announcements nor any input from those affected BY the change.
For example, until now the Seller could withhold 20% of the item cost from the Refund as "Restocking Fees". It WAS a posted Amazon policy, and the amount of withholding depended on the product, NOT ONLY the product condition.
NOT ANY MORE!
So, what ARE "Restocking Fees" anyway?
RESTOCK: verb (used with or without object) - to stock again; replenish.
FEE: noun - a charge or payment for professional services.
Restocking Fees have a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS meaning in the English language, and PRODUCT CONDITION has NOTHING to do with this meaning. Restocking Fees exist because the Seller has absorbed Expenses when originally executing their part of the contracted order, and these expenses would otherwise be LOST income for the Seller.
Could it simply be that Amazon no longer understands how to use a dictionary?
By their very definition, Restocking Fees are EXACTLY THAT: The Costs involved with accepting a Return and Restocking it back into inventory. Restocking Fees are an attempt to (at least partially) recoup the EXPENSES ALREADY LOST when the Seller processed the order.
These expenses include the gasoline involved in the transit of the item and package, the cost of packaging materials, the cost of labor to retrieve and process the order, and the labor cost in processing the Return and returning the item back to inventory. These costs are significant and occur EVEN IF the item is Returned in the Same Condition as when shipped.
What Amazon NOW considers to be "Restocking Fees" are ACTUALLY Partial Refunds issued on items Returned in Materially Different Condition from how they were when originally shipped.
This "NEW" policy is also thwarted by the existing RFS policy, which refunds orders under $100.00 when the Return shipping label is first scanned by the Return carrier. So, there is that contradiction to be dealt with as well.
To be clear: the availability for Sellers to issue Partial Refunds in situations such as this is NOT NEW, and has existed for at LEAST as long as I have been selling here.
What IS new is that 3rd Party Sellers are NOW expected to ABSORB all of the ACTUAL Restocking Fees on Buyer Error based Returns UNLESS the item is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
The irony is that IF the item IS Returned in "Materially Different Condition", than it almost certainly can NOT be "Restocked" and "Resold", ESPECIALLY on Amazon. So IF you can NOT "Restock" it, than HOW can you charge "Restocking Fees"?
The ONLY Good Thing that the change is policy provides is that NOW, the Seller need no longer fear Negative Feedback for the Authorized Withholding of legitimate Restocking Fees on Returns based on Buyer error, since the Seller can NO LONGER withhold valid Restocking Fees.
No Restocking Fees withheld = No Negative Feedback for withholding Restocking Fees.
It SURE doesn't feel like an improvement, does it?
Amazon, as usual, you have taken a perfectly working system and DESTROYED it for no good reason.
Your platform is already the world's largest. People already use Amazon for purchases. YOU DID NOT NEED TO MAKE THIS POLICY CHANGE!
Your NEW actions have now made it markedly easier for Bad Actors to steal from 3rd Party Sellers by abusing the Amazon Return system, ESPECIALLY the since initiating the "Refund at First Scan" policy.
Worse, this NEW change to the existing Restocking Fees policy makes it actually possible for competitors to slowly bleed their competition by arranging for a continual series of orders and returns, causing a continual LOSS of funds to the original Seller. How did no one consider that?
AND Amazon will STILL not remove Negative Feedback received EVEN IN CASES where a partial Refund was issued precisely BECAUSE the item was Returned in "Materially Different Condition" and fees were withheld PER AMAZON POLICY.
So WHERE is the Seller Protection?
In THIS case, it is GONE!
To all Amazon employees, ask yourself this question: Why does Amazon continue to Strip-Away the very Seller protections that Amazon USED to offer? What is the goal here, to convince 3rd Party Sellers that Amazon is NOT a "Safe Place" to Sell products?
Because THAT is the message MANY of us are receiving from Amazon!
And I truly WISH it was not the case! I long for the "Good old days" of a few years back when Amazon ACTUALLY protected their 3rd Party Sellers.
Are those days Gone Forever?
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
"New options to report seller-fulfilled returns issues"
Way to bury the lede here, Amazon!
What Amazon describes is NOT NEW at all when dealing with items Returned in "Materially Different Condition". This ability to issue a partial Refund in those cases already existed.
What Amazon FAILS to highlight is that the Seller can now ONLY charge Restocking Fees IF the product is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
THIS IS THE ACTUAL NEW CHANGE: Amazon NOW EXPRESSLY FORBIDS withholding ANY Restocking Fees on items Returned in original condition.
This is a CHANGE to existing policy, and this change was executed with ZERO announcements nor any input from those affected BY the change.
For example, until now the Seller could withhold 20% of the item cost from the Refund as "Restocking Fees". It WAS a posted Amazon policy, and the amount of withholding depended on the product, NOT ONLY the product condition.
NOT ANY MORE!
So, what ARE "Restocking Fees" anyway?
RESTOCK: verb (used with or without object) - to stock again; replenish.
FEE: noun - a charge or payment for professional services.
Restocking Fees have a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS meaning in the English language, and PRODUCT CONDITION has NOTHING to do with this meaning. Restocking Fees exist because the Seller has absorbed Expenses when originally executing their part of the contracted order, and these expenses would otherwise be LOST income for the Seller.
Could it simply be that Amazon no longer understands how to use a dictionary?
By their very definition, Restocking Fees are EXACTLY THAT: The Costs involved with accepting a Return and Restocking it back into inventory. Restocking Fees are an attempt to (at least partially) recoup the EXPENSES ALREADY LOST when the Seller processed the order.
These expenses include the gasoline involved in the transit of the item and package, the cost of packaging materials, the cost of labor to retrieve and process the order, and the labor cost in processing the Return and returning the item back to inventory. These costs are significant and occur EVEN IF the item is Returned in the Same Condition as when shipped.
What Amazon NOW considers to be "Restocking Fees" are ACTUALLY Partial Refunds issued on items Returned in Materially Different Condition from how they were when originally shipped.
This "NEW" policy is also thwarted by the existing RFS policy, which refunds orders under $100.00 when the Return shipping label is first scanned by the Return carrier. So, there is that contradiction to be dealt with as well.
To be clear: the availability for Sellers to issue Partial Refunds in situations such as this is NOT NEW, and has existed for at LEAST as long as I have been selling here.
What IS new is that 3rd Party Sellers are NOW expected to ABSORB all of the ACTUAL Restocking Fees on Buyer Error based Returns UNLESS the item is Returned in "Materially Different Condition".
The irony is that IF the item IS Returned in "Materially Different Condition", than it almost certainly can NOT be "Restocked" and "Resold", ESPECIALLY on Amazon. So IF you can NOT "Restock" it, than HOW can you charge "Restocking Fees"?
The ONLY Good Thing that the change is policy provides is that NOW, the Seller need no longer fear Negative Feedback for the Authorized Withholding of legitimate Restocking Fees on Returns based on Buyer error, since the Seller can NO LONGER withhold valid Restocking Fees.
No Restocking Fees withheld = No Negative Feedback for withholding Restocking Fees.
It SURE doesn't feel like an improvement, does it?
Amazon, as usual, you have taken a perfectly working system and DESTROYED it for no good reason.
Your platform is already the world's largest. People already use Amazon for purchases. YOU DID NOT NEED TO MAKE THIS POLICY CHANGE!
Your NEW actions have now made it markedly easier for Bad Actors to steal from 3rd Party Sellers by abusing the Amazon Return system, ESPECIALLY the since initiating the "Refund at First Scan" policy.
Worse, this NEW change to the existing Restocking Fees policy makes it actually possible for competitors to slowly bleed their competition by arranging for a continual series of orders and returns, causing a continual LOSS of funds to the original Seller. How did no one consider that?
AND Amazon will STILL not remove Negative Feedback received EVEN IN CASES where a partial Refund was issued precisely BECAUSE the item was Returned in "Materially Different Condition" and fees were withheld PER AMAZON POLICY.
So WHERE is the Seller Protection?
In THIS case, it is GONE!
To all Amazon employees, ask yourself this question: Why does Amazon continue to Strip-Away the very Seller protections that Amazon USED to offer? What is the goal here, to convince 3rd Party Sellers that Amazon is NOT a "Safe Place" to Sell products?
Because THAT is the message MANY of us are receiving from Amazon!
And I truly WISH it was not the case! I long for the "Good old days" of a few years back when Amazon ACTUALLY protected their 3rd Party Sellers.
Are those days Gone Forever?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Either I don't understand you, or until now Amazon had different protocols for different items or sellers.
In my case, most returns were refunded by Amazon after the first scam, and I did not have to do anything.
The only option to get a partial refund was by opening safe -t.
The way I understand the new policy/news is that from now on, It will be my responsibility to refund each return after examining it.
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Either I don't understand you, or until now Amazon had different protocols for different items or sellers.
In my case, most returns were refunded by Amazon after the first scam, and I did not have to do anything.
The only option to get a partial refund was by opening safe -t.
The way I understand the new policy/news is that from now on, It will be my responsibility to refund each return after examining it.
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I think you don't understand. Amazon USED to have specific protocols in-place that established the clear guidelines for how much you can withhold from the Refund under what circumstances.
Amazon has CHANGED these posted guidelines, but I still have the originals saved as jpegs. If I could figure out how to embed a jpeg in a Forum post I could display these guidelines for all to see.
Know NOW that Amazon had CHANGED these posted guidelines. The MOST important change is this: Amazon has REMOVED the ability to charge up to 20% Restocking Fees for items returned "within the Return Window" IF they are Returned in Undamaged condition, and Amazon has ADDED the ability for the Buyer to Return the item AFTER the Return window has closed. See below copied from Amazon just now:
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition within the return window.
Restocking Fee: No restocking fee.
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition outside of the return window
Restocking Fee: Yes. Up to 20% of item’s price.
*The buyer changes their mind and returns the item for one of the following reasons:
Accidental order
Better price available
No longer needed/wanted
So, not only has Amazon REMOVED our ability to charge up to 20% for Actual Restocking, but it has also allowed Buyers to INDEFINITELY DELAY the Return of the item and STILL receive 80% of their purchase as a Refund (or more).
These NEW guidelines do NOT show ANY "Expiration Date" for a Return to be accepted by the Seller, as long as the Buyer initiates a Return within the window provided by Amazon and print-out the Return label.
Amazon has NOW stated in writing that IF the Seller receives back a Return OUTSIDE of the Return Window, the Seller MUST accept the Return and issue a minimum of an 80% Refund.
And they have NOT specified ANY exceptions or expiration date.
So, a savvy Buyer could initiate a Return for everything they buy and keep the label on-file in case the item ever lowers in price or they decide to "Change their mind".
Does no one at Amazon EVER consider the unintended consequences of their decisions? Or how they can be manipulated to defraud 3rd Party Sellers? Apparently not...
So, based on your reading of this policy, you are saying that RFS is NO LONGER being applied?
No, uyou are mistaken. This is NOT the case. RFS is STILl being applied on Amazon. I JUST had an RFS applied to me 2 days ago. I wait in trepidation as to what I will receive back from the Buyer, and in what condition, but Amazon has already given them the Refund, so I am NO LONGER ABLE to follow the "New" Posted Policy for this particular Return.
For the record, RFS is still a thing. This means that this "New" policy only applies to Returns that are NOT Refunded at First Scan. You would THINK that the posted policy would address this, right?
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE FOR ORDERS THAT AMAZON REFUNDS AT FIRST SCAN.
IF the item WAS RFS'ed, the Seller can ONLY file a Safe-T Claim, and HOPE to "Win" back at LEAST the postage they had to pay for the original shipment, let alone the Return postage or ANY reasonable fees for Returning it in "Materially Different Condition".
Amazon... Get your story straight and your facts in-order. HOW does a Seller charge a Restocking Fee on an order that has been RFS'ed?
Anyone else see the conflict?
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I think you don't understand. Amazon USED to have specific protocols in-place that established the clear guidelines for how much you can withhold from the Refund under what circumstances.
Amazon has CHANGED these posted guidelines, but I still have the originals saved as jpegs. If I could figure out how to embed a jpeg in a Forum post I could display these guidelines for all to see.
Know NOW that Amazon had CHANGED these posted guidelines. The MOST important change is this: Amazon has REMOVED the ability to charge up to 20% Restocking Fees for items returned "within the Return Window" IF they are Returned in Undamaged condition, and Amazon has ADDED the ability for the Buyer to Return the item AFTER the Return window has closed. See below copied from Amazon just now:
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition within the return window.
Restocking Fee: No restocking fee.
Return Request: The buyer changes their mind* about a purchase and returns an item in the original condition outside of the return window
Restocking Fee: Yes. Up to 20% of item’s price.
*The buyer changes their mind and returns the item for one of the following reasons:
Accidental order
Better price available
No longer needed/wanted
So, not only has Amazon REMOVED our ability to charge up to 20% for Actual Restocking, but it has also allowed Buyers to INDEFINITELY DELAY the Return of the item and STILL receive 80% of their purchase as a Refund (or more).
These NEW guidelines do NOT show ANY "Expiration Date" for a Return to be accepted by the Seller, as long as the Buyer initiates a Return within the window provided by Amazon and print-out the Return label.
Amazon has NOW stated in writing that IF the Seller receives back a Return OUTSIDE of the Return Window, the Seller MUST accept the Return and issue a minimum of an 80% Refund.
And they have NOT specified ANY exceptions or expiration date.
So, a savvy Buyer could initiate a Return for everything they buy and keep the label on-file in case the item ever lowers in price or they decide to "Change their mind".
Does no one at Amazon EVER consider the unintended consequences of their decisions? Or how they can be manipulated to defraud 3rd Party Sellers? Apparently not...
So, based on your reading of this policy, you are saying that RFS is NO LONGER being applied?
No, uyou are mistaken. This is NOT the case. RFS is STILl being applied on Amazon. I JUST had an RFS applied to me 2 days ago. I wait in trepidation as to what I will receive back from the Buyer, and in what condition, but Amazon has already given them the Refund, so I am NO LONGER ABLE to follow the "New" Posted Policy for this particular Return.
For the record, RFS is still a thing. This means that this "New" policy only applies to Returns that are NOT Refunded at First Scan. You would THINK that the posted policy would address this, right?
If you receive a return in a used, damaged, defective, or materially different condition, then you can charge a restocking fee from the buyer.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE FOR ORDERS THAT AMAZON REFUNDS AT FIRST SCAN.
IF the item WAS RFS'ed, the Seller can ONLY file a Safe-T Claim, and HOPE to "Win" back at LEAST the postage they had to pay for the original shipment, let alone the Return postage or ANY reasonable fees for Returning it in "Materially Different Condition".
Amazon... Get your story straight and your facts in-order. HOW does a Seller charge a Restocking Fee on an order that has been RFS'ed?
Anyone else see the conflict?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
So, does the news applies only to items that "skipped" the RFS because of high value, or that amazon missed them?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
So, does the news applies only to items that "skipped" the RFS because of high value, or that amazon missed them?
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I am not sure what criteria Amazon uses to apply the RFS and when to withhold the RFS.
At first, I believed they would RFS anything less than $100.00, but I just had 2 Returns of less than $100.00 that were NOT RFS'ed.
And 1 Return that was less than $100.00 and WAS RFS'ed, a week after the first two were received back.
So, I cannot ascertain the internal "Logic" Amazon uses to determine WHICH Returns get RFS and which are left to US to Refund.
You would THINK that Amazon would make this CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS, right?
Seller_R2dP7Hunjcdj0
I am not sure what criteria Amazon uses to apply the RFS and when to withhold the RFS.
At first, I believed they would RFS anything less than $100.00, but I just had 2 Returns of less than $100.00 that were NOT RFS'ed.
And 1 Return that was less than $100.00 and WAS RFS'ed, a week after the first two were received back.
So, I cannot ascertain the internal "Logic" Amazon uses to determine WHICH Returns get RFS and which are left to US to Refund.
You would THINK that Amazon would make this CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS, right?
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Yes, it was/is $100, and this is how it was for me.
Since Amazon is not a good communicator, it could be that the RFS depends also on the buyer's history of returns...
We are allowed to guess !.
Seller_JELEnXFOrnw4L
Yes, it was/is $100, and this is how it was for me.
Since Amazon is not a good communicator, it could be that the RFS depends also on the buyer's history of returns...
We are allowed to guess !.
Seller_FaV5Qh0z4BM3s
Excellent post! I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I could "like" it a thousand times.
Seller_FaV5Qh0z4BM3s
Excellent post! I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I could "like" it a thousand times.
Seller_myoB69lOiJNbe
You nailed it! Amazon has been doing a lot of changes that sellers get confused. And...recently, I received an RFS and buyer was fully refunded even it is not my fault that the given address was non-deliverable. Tried to file a claim just for the postage and the support told me to file a claim with my carrier. The shipping label has been scanned and made it's way to the address given by Amazon but returned to our facility due to address non-deliverable. Shipping cost has been lost on my end and the buyer who gave a non-deliverable address got their money back.
Amazon should make sure all the addresses given are legit and deliverable. It is not the seller's fault the orders are not received. What a waste!
Seller_myoB69lOiJNbe
You nailed it! Amazon has been doing a lot of changes that sellers get confused. And...recently, I received an RFS and buyer was fully refunded even it is not my fault that the given address was non-deliverable. Tried to file a claim just for the postage and the support told me to file a claim with my carrier. The shipping label has been scanned and made it's way to the address given by Amazon but returned to our facility due to address non-deliverable. Shipping cost has been lost on my end and the buyer who gave a non-deliverable address got their money back.
Amazon should make sure all the addresses given are legit and deliverable. It is not the seller's fault the orders are not received. What a waste!
Seller_nx8v7SMEX2ZBv
This guy asks me to cancel an order hours after i shipped . then he asks to cancel again after the tracking says it was at the post office and he picked it up . now he saying he cant do a return to refund him. whats wrong with these ppl they get away with this too often im not doing it refuse cancel due to shipped advise to call amazon customer service to walk through return. still asks to cancel and refund smh. shipping bought through amazon
Seller_nx8v7SMEX2ZBv
This guy asks me to cancel an order hours after i shipped . then he asks to cancel again after the tracking says it was at the post office and he picked it up . now he saying he cant do a return to refund him. whats wrong with these ppl they get away with this too often im not doing it refuse cancel due to shipped advise to call amazon customer service to walk through return. still asks to cancel and refund smh. shipping bought through amazon
Seller_FSJQSK8dDFpH2
Any protection against negative feedback retaliation for charging a restocking fee?
Are the automated refunds ending? How do we charge a fee when the customer is already refunded?
Seller_FSJQSK8dDFpH2
Any protection against negative feedback retaliation for charging a restocking fee?
Are the automated refunds ending? How do we charge a fee when the customer is already refunded?
Seller_kWzASERYhgus6
I don't restock damaged, used merchandise.
My customers are refunded immediately on first scan, a program I cannot opt out of.
This is not news, it is nonsense.
Shocker.
Seller_kWzASERYhgus6
I don't restock damaged, used merchandise.
My customers are refunded immediately on first scan, a program I cannot opt out of.
This is not news, it is nonsense.
Shocker.
Seller_2ocdeVST6pSqj
so return at first scan is no longer in place? this needs to be clarified!
Seller_2ocdeVST6pSqj
so return at first scan is no longer in place? this needs to be clarified!
Seller_wnc1pjYEF5ZqF
Amazon finally recognizing that return abuse and fraud is at an all time high. 2023 has been the worst year for fraudulent returns I've dealt with in over a decade of online selling. Amazon made it too easy for customers to just return used junk or something entirely different with a different serial number and get a full refund. Even the honest customers are emboldened now, because they all know there's no consequence.
Seller_wnc1pjYEF5ZqF
Amazon finally recognizing that return abuse and fraud is at an all time high. 2023 has been the worst year for fraudulent returns I've dealt with in over a decade of online selling. Amazon made it too easy for customers to just return used junk or something entirely different with a different serial number and get a full refund. Even the honest customers are emboldened now, because they all know there's no consequence.
