Returns Tracking

[Racket_Man]

I heard this on the news tonight and I thought about posting it over on CS but in the fact that it could get a little contentious I will put ithis here.

Most people who work in the larger big box stores complain about people basically having card blanche when returning items with a receipt or no receipt.

Now some of the large big box stores are contracting out to companies to track returns and the patterns thereof. These 3d party companies create profiles of returns to track possible fraud and theft.

PRivacy advocates are screaming bloody murder as this practise is not really disclosed at the time of purchase.

The retail industry claims it is trying to "creatively " combat theft and fraud (good point as it does cost them millions and millions each year). They claim the legitimate customer is not the target.. The length of time a "profile" is kept is dictated by the retailer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=business

[Gravekeeper]

Of all the ways retailers and markets track and profile customers, *this* is the one that has people screaming about invasion of privacy? -.-

Frankly it doesn't seem too dissimilar from how used goods are treated. You can't bring something into a pawn shop or hock used games to Gamestop without them getting our ID you just in case the merchandise was stolen.

This is the same sort of thing, but more organized ( as it would have to be for a major retail chain ). Though it should be disclosed in the return policy like it is with Best Buy.

[Panacea]

I really don't have a problem with this policy as long as the information is not shared with other retailers, and as long as the policy is disclosed.

I think it's good for consumers in the long run, actually, to fight the kind of theft and BS that we all know is way too common from the various threads on this issue over on CS.

[s_stabeler]

disclose the policy, limit the use to by that one retailer, and let them do it. It's not really any different from a member of staff recognising the customer, and has very good business reasons behind it. I'd make a couple of tweaks to it (specifically, I would allow returns and exchanges if there is an actual fault with the product, as opposed to the customer changing their mind)

but yeah, I can see this being useful for two types of fraud. One is the example given, where they are switching price tags them returning the item a day or two later for full price, making a profit on the difference. The second, more obvious one, is 'renters' who buy say, a suit, wear it, then return it. (yes, this IS fraud. Specifically, you're essentially stealing the rental fee.)

[HYHYBT]

The trouble with an exception for faulty products is that that encourages them to break items instead of returning them in potentially resellable condition.

[Andara Bledin]

The trouble with an exception for faulty products is that that encourages them to break items instead of returning them in potentially resellable condition.

Depending on what it is, I suspect that it's often fairly easy to separate manufacturing defects from damage.

[s_stabeler]

The trouble with an exception for faulty products is that that encourages them to break items instead of returning them in potentially resellable condition.

yes, but a policy that allows a company to arbitrarily say No refunds is actually illegal, IIRC, certainly it is illegal in the UK. Mainly because companies were making return policies excessively strict to dodge legitimate returns.

[Dips]

In the US it's perfectly legal for a company to have a "all products sold as-is and all sales are final" policy. The only exception the law makes is that products sold as-is actually function as they are intended. A person would be covered by that if a refrigerator did not keep food cold, but could not return an as-is refrigerator for having a big scratch or other cosmetic issue.

Stores are free to have a more generous refund policy (and most do). They are also obligated by law to adhere to any published policy of theirs. But the law does not dictate that they have to allow refunds at all; it's more of a courtesy/privilege than a right.

[HYHYBT]

Depending on what it is, I suspect that it's often fairly easy to separate manufacturing defects from damage.

Maybe, but would that be the right place to draw the line anyway? A product may be damaged before it's sold, or it may have been returned previously and put back on the shelf.