alt Hacker NewsOn the surface of it, it would appear not to make sense. Why would Amazon take on the cost of handling a return item that they will have to dispose? They could just indicate to the user to keep the item --- and that in fact does happen! I had a return like that just this past week.
However, there is an obvious incentive to minimize these no-return refunds and require users to print labels and go through the motion of returning items that won't be restocked.
It discourages fraud: people abusing the no-return refund as a way of getting free stuff!
The no-return refund has to be a kind of perk for the customer who rarely returns anything or whatever.
I would say that it would be astonishing if Amazon pretending to accept returns and then throwing away is a thing that absolutely does not happen, and honestly cannot blame them for it. We are a throw-away-stuff society, and Amazon is not outside of that society.
> We are a throw-away-stuff society, and Amazon is not outside of that society.
What Amazon does with returns doesn't have anything to do with what kind of "society" you think we are.
What it does with returns is determined by the profit motive.
And in most cases, the more profitable thing to do is to resell returned merchandise. Yes, return inspections cost money, but usually less money than what is gained by reselling the item.
Returned merchandise has value, and businesses don't make profit by throwing value away when they can make money with it or reduce losses with it instead.
I genuinely don't understand all the people who think it's more cost-effective for Amazon to send a $50 shirt to the dumpster rather than resell it. That's not how anything works.