Talk:Return fraud

POV issues
I added the POV tag for a bias in favour of over-describing practices as fraudulent. This page reads like advocacy for the interests of retailers, and asserts without verification that certain practices, particularly wardrobing, are a form of return fraud. The first cited article for this proposition only had the word "fraud" in it once, and it's a quote from a retail lobbyist. The second link is largely paywalled and seems to be mostly an empirical study of the frequency of the practice. Throughout the article, all of the citations are from retailer-affiliated source who have a vested interest in describing practices that they find undesireable as fraudulent. Few are from neutral sources, such as whether the criminal law treats a given practice as a form of fraud. I've cleaned up the article somewhat, but it requires the affirmative presence of good sources and writing, not just the removal of the bad. Asasa64 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that some of the statements are not neutral regardless of truthfulness. "Return abuse is a form of 'friendly fraud'" for example is neither true, nor if it were true would it be neutral in tone. The appropriate term in such a case would be chargeback fraud to avoid coloring the nature of the article. Similarly, "The retail industry experiences a significant fraud and abuse problem, losing money in the range of $24 billion per year, roughly 7% of all returns and exchanges." The use of significant and problem in this context is obvious geared in favor of retailers. The same meaning and tone could be conveyed by stating, "The retail industry experiences returns fraud and abuse at an estimated loss of $24 billion per year, roughly 7% of all returns and exchanges." The tone definitely needs addressing. 66.185.175.26 (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge
This article's content is already well-described in just a few lines in Returning. Though this is a longer article, much of the information here is redundant to that article, and that one covers more information and has much better inline citations. Therefore, I am suggesting a merge. Hellno2 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Legality
I think this article could use a section on the legality of return fraud (maybe only in the USA?), as all types of return fraud are not illegal everywhere in the USA, and this article somewhat implies that it is. For example, many states do not have laws against "renting" or "wardrobing." Obviously, this should be done in a way that sticks with Wikipedia guidelines for showing information about a singular country, but there really isn't a good comprehensive resource on the 'net for this sort of thing yet. --Josmul123 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wardrobing merge
How do you merge it I agree Awesomecat713 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support' proposal to merge Wardrobing to Return fraud (on the grounds of duplication, or at least overlap). I hope that you don't mind that I move your discussion down, as you wrote in a section related to a 2009 proposal that was discussing a different merge proposal. I think that you were probably intending to write on the proposal related to Wardrobing, but please correct me if this is wrong. You can see how to  complete a merge at WP:MERGETEXT. Klbrain (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much discussion this will inspire. I think this proposal could justifiably be resolved with a bold merge. WP:MERGEINIT Arllaw (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)