Top Rated Seller Charged 5% “Very High” Fee Across All Sales – Seeking Clarification
Hi everyone,
I’m hoping to get constructive input from experienced sellers or moderators.
I operate the store Sneakerizum and have maintained nearly 99.99% positive feedback along with Top Rated Seller status.
Since July 1, 2025, my account has carried the additional 5% “Very High – Item Not As Described” surcharge.
Here is where I’m struggling:
• The “Very High” determination is based on a subset of returns
• The 5% fee is applied to all transactions, including the majority that are completed successfully
• I have enabled free returns
• I have reported buyers I believed were misusing return reasons
• Reported cases were not removed from service metrics
• The surcharge has now totaled several thousand dollars over multiple months
I understand how the percentage is calculated and how peer comparison works. My concern is not a misunderstanding of policy, but how it is applied in practice.
I should also note that in a prior instance, this metric was reviewed and adjusted following escalation, which indicated that account-level review beyond automated application may be possible.
Another point I’m trying to better understand is the peer comparison itself.
My current “Very High” designation reflects an INAD return rate of approximately 3.8%, while the benchmark shown for my peer group is around 1%.
Given the category I sell in, where return rates are generally higher, I’m trying to understand:
• How peer groups are defined (category, price range, condition, etc.)
• Whether the comparison accounts for categories with naturally higher return behavior
• How sellers can verify that the benchmark is representative
Without visibility into how this benchmark is determined, it’s difficult to assess how to realistically move back into an “Average” range.
As a result of the ongoing surcharge, I have also reduced my sales volume on the platform, as the additional 5% fee materially impacts margins across all transactions.
Additionally, based on my fee breakdowns, the surcharge has resulted in approximately $1,200+ in additional “Very High – Item Not As Described” fees, and this has been ongoing since July 2025, representing a consistent and material increase in my monthly selling costs.
My question is ultimately about proportionality and process:
How does a Top Rated Seller with near-perfect feedback justify a universal 5% surcharge on every sale when the majority of transactions do not result in returns?
Has anyone successfully had a manual review conducted?
Has anyone had reported cases removed from metrics after abusive buyer review?
I’ve gone through support and BBB, and the responses have primarily restated the policy. I’m looking for practical insight from sellers who may have navigated this successfully.
Thank you.
american-photography
·6 months agoMaybe the question should be how can I improve my defect rate through more accurate descriptions and better customer service rather than how are defect rates measured?
Also just curious, how are you able to sell such large volumes of high demand brands such as Lululemon, Polo Ralph Lauren, Supreme, and Nike for such low prices without being an authorized dealer or reseller for these brands and where are you sourcing all your inventory by the way?
I noticed some of your buyers were mentioning knockoffs or didn’t pass authentication. Along with those comments there seemed to be many complaints about sizing issues which are not encountered with those bought at authorized store dealers.
mamacassidy
·6 months agoOP said: "If the metric is driven by a subset of returns, extending the penalty across the entire account including unaffected transactions goes well beyond addressing the specific behavior it’s supposed to correct.
At that point, it stops being a targeted performance adjustment and starts functioning as a broad, account-wide penalty that isn’t directly tied to the underlying transactions."
The penalty is not based on 1 or 2 instances, it is based on a PATTERN of behavior. Therefore, they are going to take measures across the whole account to change the PATTERN, not just fix a few specific transactions.
luckythewinner
·6 months agoI’m trying to understand:
• How peer groups are defined (category, price range, condition, etc.)
• Whether the comparison accounts for categories with naturally higher return behavior
• How sellers can verify that the benchmark is representative
eBay explains the program here:
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-policies/seller-performance-policy/service-metrics-policy?id=4769
This is the only explanation you will get.
How does a Top Rated Seller with near-perfect feedback justify a universal 5% surcharge on every sale when the majority of transactions do not result in returns?
eBay has policy that when a seller exceeds certain metrics, there is a penalty fee imposed.
I have also reduced my sales volume on the platform, as the additional 5% fee materially impacts margins across all transactions.
The penalty fee is intended to get you to either (a) figure out how to avoid returns; or (b) leave the site.
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoIt sounds like you’re effectively saying a blanket 5% surcharge across all transactions is reasonable, even when the majority of those transactions have no issues.
That’s where I fundamentally disagree.
If the metric is driven by a subset of returns, extending the penalty across the entire account including unaffected transactions goes well beyond addressing the specific behavior it’s supposed to correct.
At that point, it stops being a targeted performance adjustment and starts functioning as a broad, account-wide penalty that isn’t directly tied to the underlying transactions.
I also saw your point about the intent being to either reduce returns or leave the site and I think that actually highlights the concern.
If the structure of the fee effectively pushes sellers toward leaving, then it raises the question of whether it’s functioning as a corrective metric or as a broader pressure mechanism.
There’s a difference between incentivizing better performance and applying a blanket surcharge across all transactions that extends beyond the specific cases driving the metric.
I understand that the policy exists but simply pointing to the policy doesn’t address whether the way it’s applied is proportionate or logically consistent with what it’s measuring.
luckythewinner
·6 months agoIt sounds like you’re effectively saying a blanket 5% surcharge across all transactions is reasonable
I never said it is reasonable. What did I say that gave you that impression?
That’s where I fundamentally disagree.
Then you are disagreeing with eBay, not me.
extending the penalty across the entire account including unaffected transactions goes well beyond addressing the specific behavior it’s supposed to correct.
The penalty is not designed address a subset of listings or be proportionate. It is designed to be severe, painful, and scare you into either adjusting your business model or discouraging you from selling here.
There’s a difference between incentivizing better performance and applying a blanket surcharge across all transactions that extends beyond the specific cases driving the metric.
Your logic falls apart when you remember that when you accept a return, the buyer is refunded and the seller pays ZERO fees.
Adding an additional 5% onto the fees for an accepted return results in ZERO fees and therefore no penalty. The only way to penalize a seller with extra fees is to penalize the transactions whre the seller did NOT accept a return.
simply pointing to the policy doesn’t address whether the way it’s applied is proportionate or logically consistent with what it’s measuring.
You asked how eBay determines the peer group you are measured against. For instance, you asked whether it was based on category. The link I posted to the policy explains that peers are indeed based on category. When I posted the link, I even quoted the relevant part of your post that I was addressing. I never suggested that link would address your opinions about proportinality or logcal consistency.
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoFair enough, I will clarify.
You’re right that the policy exists and that I’m ultimately questioning how eBay applies it. But the point I’m making isn’t about whether a penalty exists. It’s about how that penalty is structured.
Even accepting your explanation, the core issue remains:
If the metric is triggered by a defined subset of transactions, then applying a surcharge across all transactions, including those with no issues, creates a disconnect between what’s being measured and how the penalty is applied.
That’s not about whether the penalty is severe by design. It’s about whether it’s actually aligned with the underlying activity it’s supposed to reflect.
On your point about returns resulting in zero fees, that actually reinforces the inconsistency. If the transactions directly associated with returns don’t generate fees, then the surcharge is being applied primarily to unrelated, successful transactions.
So the impact of the penalty is effectively shifted away from the transactions that triggered the metric and onto the rest of the business.
That’s the part that doesn’t seem logically consistent.
jonathanbrightlight
·6 months ago@sneakerzium The penalty isn’t on the transactions, though. It’s not intended to be “aligned with the underlying activity it’s supposed to reflect”. It’s a penalty inn the seller that is producing the issues, not on the transactions that are producing the issues.
mamacassidy
·6 months agoWhat are the reasons the buyers are giving when they say INAD? They have to type in a reason. Are they saying they don't fit? Are they saying they are fake? Are they saying they are not in the condition the listing described?
I can't tell you how the ebay algorithm works, but if you are getting a bunch of INAD returns, you need to see what they are saying and take action from there.
Example: I noticed a few of your feedback say the Polo RL shirts were smaller than normal. So you might consider showing the actual measurements in the listing.
Example: A couple of you feedback say they didn't think the item was New. You might err on the side of caution and say New: Other (like they were a floor model that was tried on and handled) or Pre-Owned if they are not perfect.
Example: Some of your feedback mentions quality. Maybe look at where you're sourcing your items. Are you sure the items you are selling are real and not imitations?
We as sellers on this platform are largely at the mercy of ebay, but there are certain things we can control, so I'd focus on those things.
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoSome of the shirts we sell are custom fits and it is mentioned that they can run a size smaller. I think next step is offering prepaid labels for returns maybe that will help but it's been going on for months now.
they are saying stuff like changed mind or doesn't fit i took action, I offered free returns even then eBay still count the cases against me, they said if I report the cases they will remove it for me. If you look at my feedback that's like 5 shirts total over the 5000 shirts I've already sold which is less than .1%
soh.maryl
·6 months agoWill not comment on the bulk of your issues, just have a question or two:
If you know that these shirts run smaller in size, why not offer measurements in your listings?
If NAD cases are being opened, prepaid labels are required. Or are you referring to offering prepaid labels for ALL issues, including "just don't like it"?
PS: Given that the negatives are for fit, am seeing measurements as a pretty good idea.
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoTo mention, if eBay followed their own policies and allowed the removal of these INAD i would not be at a very high status it would be around 2% if not less and not incur this extra fee. It's just a way of them generating more revenue even though nothing is inherently wrong with the seller....
gear-guy-659
·6 months agoI am sick of ebay hitting me with this 5% fine for multiple items that are invalid and then not telling me which items are going to be counted against me or letting me appeal them after I recieve notice. This absolutely feels like a scam to me for ebay to scam sellers out of even more profit. Has anyone filed a class-action lawsuit against ebay for service metrics yet?
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoAppreciate you sharing this a lot of what you’re describing aligns with what I’ve been experiencing.
eBay does show which cases are contributing to the metric, so there is some visibility there. The challenge, at least from my experience, is less about identifying the cases and more about how they are classified and whether they can be meaningfully reviewed or adjusted.
Even in situations where a return appears to be preference-based, if it’s opened as “Item Not As Described,” it still impacts the metric at the time the case is opened.
That’s where the difficulty comes in understanding what specific operational changes would actually reduce the metric when classification doesn’t always reflect the underlying reason for the return.
One additional point I’ve been trying to better understand is the application of the surcharge itself. Since the metric is based on a subset of transactions, applying the additional 5% fee across all sales including those that were not affected creates a much broader impact than the underlying cases.
It would be helpful to understand the rationale behind applying the fee at the account level rather than limiting it to the transactions directly associated with those returns.
If there were clearer guidance or more flexibility around how these cases are evaluated, it would be much easier to address the root cause rather than just reacting to the outcome.
gear-guy-659
·6 months agoJust got another one that is going to affect my rating. I sent the item within hours of receiving the order via the "buyer selected" method and delivery was attempted on March 28th. The buyer is too lazy to go to the post office and pick up the item, so they have opened an "item not received" claim. Even though I can get this closed in my favor, it is still going to affect my seller rating. This whole service metrics rating system is some screwed up **bleep**. It would be one thing if "my peers" in the sporting goods category all had a similar level of "defects", but somehow they seem to be luckier than I am (0.74% defect rate). Also, even if they were all valid, how is 11/439 (2.51%) sales marked as "item not as described" even remotely a justifiable defect amount to fine me 5% / thousands of dollars a year. I have been an active ebay seller for over 20 years and am sick of their sleezy crap (although what should we expect, they are an auction house...). I certainly didn't sign up for this 20 years ago. It must have been slipped into the user agreement I "agreed" to at some point. At any rate, what can we do to get them to stop this extra fine? If I accept returns does it go away?
Also, does anyone else this it's insane that ebay charges you their standard fee on taxes they collect and pay on your behalf? So sleezy. They are leaching every cent they can out of us. Oh and you cant download the project rate report to even see what new items are going to be counted against you the next month. **bleep**!
kibble-net
·6 months agoThere are only two words you need to know to fix this problem of excessive INADs:
"Personal Responsibility"
Do a better job describing and photographing your items.
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoI agree that accurate descriptions and clear photos are important, and we do continuously work to improve both.
That said, we’ve already made adjustments in those areas and also tested enabling free returns, and the INAD rate did not materially change.
That’s why I’m trying to better understand how returns are being classified particularly in cases where buyers select “Item Not As Described” for preference-based reasons like fit and how that impacts service metrics relative to peers.
I’ve also come across other discussions where sellers are describing similar experiences with service metrics and INAD classification, which suggests this may not be isolated to a single account:
https://community.ebay.com/t5/Selling/Service-Metrics-The-Equivalent-of-Stealing-Money-Outwardly-Still/td-p/32959738
duffy4444
·6 months ago@sneakerzium :
You've got a lot of wordiness and over-analysis that doesn't mean anything when it gets down to what's really important in your sales and service behavior according to eBay's standards... whether you're still in TRS or not.
Here's all you need to know:
Stop dealing with the effect, and move on to removing the cause. Your neutral and negative feedback is the best indication of what you need to concentrate on, and any amount of excuses and over-analysis is only ignoring necessary changes.
There's always a long line of clothing returns in B&M stores. And my wife often returns online purchases that don't fit, but she doesn't go out of her way to give neg and neutral feedback. So having a high rate of returns in your clothing category is one thing. When they get to the point of customers going to the effort of giving you neg and neutral feedback is entirely another, and is telling you something you need to know. eBay's telling you the same thing.
Keep it simple - change where it is obvious something needs to be done, and stop making excuses and over-analyzing - it's useless.
Cheers, Duffy
sneakerzium
OP6 months agounderstand your point, and I agree that reviewing feedback and improving listings is always important we do actively make adjustments based on buyer feedback.
That said, the issue I’m trying to understand here goes beyond general return behavior.
We’ve already tested changes such as enabling free returns and refining listings, and the INAD rate did not materially change. This suggests that factors beyond listing accuracy may be influencing how returns are being classified.
In particular, buyers will often select “Item Not As Described” for preference-based reasons like fit, which still impacts service metrics at the time the case is opened.
I’ve also noticed in other forum discussions that higher-volume sellers are reporting similar challenges with INAD classification and service metrics, which suggests this may not be isolated to a single account.
So while I agree that improving listings is important, the core question remains how returns are categorized and how that categorization is applied relative to peer benchmarks.
christworks
·6 months ago@sneakerzium
sneakerzium
OP6 months agoI understand your point regarding statistical outliers, and I agree that relative to a 1% benchmark, a 3–4% rate may appear elevated at first glance.
However, that’s part of what I’m trying to better understand whether that benchmark is fully representative of the category.
In clothing, return behavior tends to be inherently higher due to factors like fit, preference, and subjective expectations. From what I’ve observed, rates in the 2–5% range are not uncommon depending on the type of inventory being sold.
Additionally, after reviewing other forum discussions, it appears that a number of sellers are experiencing similar challenges with how INAD cases are counted and how peer comparisons are applied.
We have also tested enabling free returns for an extended period, and the INAD rate did not materially improve, which suggests that return classification rather than return policy may be a key factor.
From our experience, buyers will often select “Item Not As Described” even in situations that are preference-based (such as fit or style), and these cases still impact service metrics at the time they are opened.
That’s really the core issue I’m trying to understand — not whether returns happen, but how they are classified and how that classification impacts metrics relative to peers.
Given the volume we process, even small shifts in how returns are categorized can have a significant financial impact.
I do agree with your point regarding the lack of transparency in how peer groups are defined. Without visibility into how “similar items” and “similar pricing” are determined, it’s difficult to know what operational changes would realistically move the metric back into an average range.
If you or others have had success improving INAD rates specifically within clothing categories, I’d be interested in what changes actually made a measurable difference.