Hacker News Reader

Comment by wahnfrieden | Hacker News Reader

Just bear in mind that if they don't like how often you return or the circumstances, they will issue you a sudden lifetime ban

But also if you go to support chat (not via the order details, which often rejects attempts at getting support) via the site footer, and escalate to an agent, you can tell them you don't have a post office that's easy to get to for you and don't drive etc. and they will just issue you a refund (if it's a quality problem). Done this many times when the product was damaged.

View on HN

> Just bear in mind that if they don't like how often you return or the circumstances, they will issue you a sudden lifetime ban

I think that if I had to return frequently, I'd find a different vendor well before Amazon would decide they don't want me as a customer.

On the rare occasion I want a return, I've assumed that the reason they handle it without any issue is because they can see my lifetime purchase value vs. my return rate.

Maybe they don't care about my stats I guess but whichever way I'm currently happy in that regard.

I do worry that the competition is being wiped out, but I don't believe in boycotts for idealistic antitrust reasons.

Your second paragraph seems to explain your first.

You're suggesting I've been banned for abusing the service?

I've never been banned and I don't abuse it. What I said is also true, that I don't drive etc.

I don't need to have been banned myself to know how they've operated with others. And seeking refunds for goods that were damaged upon arrival is not abuse. There's no need to give in to their first preference to return an item when it is in fact their policy to process refunds for them too, they just hide it behind customer service protocols instead of exposing it in UI. You don't need to settle for the first suggested remediation from a business's customer service to be ethical, or shaming people for escalating. That's just being a chump.

Not accusing you (or the imaginary person who returns many things but can't reach a post office, UPS store, etc, since you've made it clear that isn't you) of abuse. But it makes sense that they are doing analysis and banning customers that look like they're abusing the system, regardless of the truth of the matter. If someone is frequently receiving damaged goods and frequently requesting refunds without returns, that will be flagged for fraud.

Is your implication that they are cheating Amazon by claiming there is no easy return route? Or are you saying that their many returns drew a ban even when they were being approved for them?

There is too little detail in the GP to draw a conclusion, so this comment seems unfair.

They're accusing me of cheating Amazon and having experienced a ban myself. Neither is the case and my post didn't indicate either being so.

IDK why I'm catching an accusation and downvotes by telling people about Amazon customer support protocols that are internal policy but not documented publicly: that they will ban you for returns past some threshold of frequency and price, and they offer refunds for items that arrive damaged even if they first push you to spend your time returning them instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com