Retailers are making returns harder. A carpet seller taught me why that’s a mistake

By the Editorial Team · Tuesday, October 6, 2026

Consumers in the U.S. are facing tougher return policies, including surprise fees and shorter return windows, as many retailers tighten their approaches. This shift contrasts with traditional practices like maintaining reserve funds to absorb return costs, which experts say can preserve customer trust and long-term profitability.

In today’s retail environment, many consumers are encountering increasing difficulties when attempting to return purchased products, a trend that industry observers say conflicts with longstanding business practices. According to recent reports, customers in the United States have expressed frustration over surprise fees, reduced return windows, and more invasive inquiries regarding why items are being sent back. Some shoppers have also received warnings indicating that future returns may not be refunded, signaling a tightening of return policies across various retailers.

This shift stands in contrast to traditional approaches to product returns, which have historically been viewed as a standard and manageable part of doing business. Jerry Crawford, a late South Jersey carpet wholesaler, exemplified this perspective over his three decades of operation. Employing about 50 people and working with numerous local and national retailers, Crawford maintained a formal reserve fund designed to cover the costs associated with returns.

A reserve fund is an accounting provision that anticipates potential future expenses, including those arising from product returns. For Crawford, this reserve amounted to roughly 0.5% of sales, a small adjustment embedded in the overall pricing structure to offset return-related costs without noticeably impacting customers. Returned goods were charged against this reserve, ensuring the business could absorb these expenses without resorting to restrictive return policies.

Experts argue that while returns do impose costs, these can be effectively budgeted for over time and incorporated into product pricing, similar to how companies manage credit card fees or insurance premiums. By planning for returns in advance, businesses can maintain customer satisfaction and loyalty, avoid negative publicity, and potentially increase long-term profitability.

Despite these lessons, many modern retailers appear to be moving away from such practices, opting instead to restrict returns and impose fees. This approach has raised concerns because it may erode consumer trust and deter repeat business. Observers note it is surprising that, despite extensive historical experience and business knowledge, some companies do not factor return costs into their pricing and instead make the process more difficult for customers.

The debate highlights a fundamental business question: whether it is better to absorb the predictable costs of returns and invest in customer goodwill or to impose immediate barriers that could harm brand reputation and long-term revenue. The example set by firms such as Jerry Crawford’s carpet business underscores the potential benefits of the former approach, emphasizing that accommodating returns can be integrated into sound financial planning and does not need to burden customers disproportionately.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.