eBay Seller Protection - Requiring Photos On Returns?

[valueaddedresource]

In the Q3 earnings call yesterday, CEO Jamie Iannone said:

Based on community feedback, we've reduced another pain point for trusted sellers by increasing protection against fraudulent returns by requiring photos and providing returns shipping credits.

https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2021/10/27/ebay-inc-ebay-q3-2021-earnings-call-transc... 

I'm assuming the return shipping credit he's talking about is the $6 credit for false INAD that was part of the Top Rated Seller additional protections from Fall 2019 update.

But I'm not sure what he meant about requiring photos to provide protection against fraudulent returns.

As a Top Rated Seller, my most recent "not as described" return certainly didn't require the buyer to upload a photo and it is in fact a false INAD - item was listed as 12" x 9", buyer states in return comments that he received 12" x 9" but needed 12" x 12".

I'm pretty sure if there had been a change to policy requiring buyers to provide pictures on returns that it would have been big news around here, so I'll admit I'm stumped.  Anyone have any idea what he might have been referring to there?

[bigdeals.etc]

Yea me too. I haven’t heard about this at all until this thread. Wastingtime is probably right about the internal pilot program (guinea pigs) and didn’t tell the guinea pigs themselves.

[dbfolks166mt]

     It will be interesting to see how well eBay stands behind the new chargeback policy they just put in place. I fully expect before too long there will be another chargeback issue posted on this forum. 

[dbfolks166mt]

     They actually just recently put the policy in place for chargebacks but it has not yet been extended to eBay NAD cases. 

https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/getting-paid/handling-payment-disputes?id=4799 

[cstpos]

@valueaddedresource  Thanks for the post. I followed the link you provided, and it proved very interesting. I especially like the parts about "low-value" buyers and sellers.

[valueaddedresource]

---

@cstpos wrote:

@valueaddedresource  Thanks for the post. I followed the link you provided, and it proved very interesting. I especially like the parts about "low-value" buyers and sellers.

---

@cstpos  you're welcome! I'll admit I'm not a stock market person and for a long time held the opinion that what the CEO says to the stock market people isn't all that important for us sellers here in the trenches - but once I started tuning into the calls, I "got it".

There's a lot that can be gleaned from those calls, good and bad, and it's interesting sometimes just to gauge the differences in how eBay talks to wall street vs how they talk to sellers.

[cstpos]

@dbfolks166mt  Thanks for posting this link. I still don't understand why the buyer decides if they return the item or not.

[zamo-zuan]

Never experienced any requirement for photos.

That said, what would it really change, anyway? The customer can still claim something else. It didn't fit, claim it doesn't work, or damage the item themselves and claim it came that way. 

Images wouldn't mean anything without a major returns policy change that would actually protect sellers.

[dentalrprtek2012]

**bleep** THERE IS NO SELLER PROTECTION,I PROVIDED PICTURES AND THEY STILL GAVE A FULL REFUND FOR A FRAUDULENT CLAIM

[valueaddedresource]

---

@zamo-zuan wrote:

Never experienced any requirement for photos.

That said, what would it really change, anyway? The customer can still claim something else. It didn't fit, claim it doesn't work, or damage the item themselves and claim it came that way. 

Images wouldn't mean anything without a major returns policy change that would actually protect sellers.

---

@zamo-zuan  agree - that's why I am really curious to get details on what exactly this is and how it provides more protection for sellers.

Ok, so they require the buyer to add a picture and let's say they send something like @bigdeals.etc ducks.....then what?

I'm not seeing how just requiring pictures alone does much to protect sellers so I'm hoping there is something more to the story than that.

[bimm_corp]

@valueaddedresource 

>increasing protection against fraudulent returns by requiring photos

All that'a going to do is to encourage dishonest buyers to break an item before photographing and claim it was received damaged.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@redmodelt wrote:

"I'm also proud that eBay will be carbon neutral for our offices and data centers in 2021"  Because everyone is working from home! LOL

---

Or most likely, they are buying AlGore's carbon credits.

[katzrul15]

I just tested one (did not finalize the return as I have no desire to return the item) and YES, it does want you to upload pictures in order to proceed with the SNAD.  (Before, it was just a suggestion).

I like this.  I think it will work to deter those who perhaps were just fishing for a partial or a refund, where none was ever warranted.  Welcomed change.

[wastingtime101]

---

@valueaddedresource wrote:

---

I'm not seeing how just requiring pictures alone does much to protect sellers so I'm hoping there is something more to the story than that.

---

eBay says they don't look at photos because they can be doctored. Photos are there for buyers and sellers to work things out together. So how is requiring photos that eBay won't look at supposed to provide more protections?

I think the change is mostly about optics - making it appear that eBay is doing something to support sellers without really changing the policy. If enough buyers cry out I could see eBay reversing this next year.

It would be great to be proven wrong on this one and hear from eBay that there is some level of protection involved that we haven't been informed about yet.

I don't think the change is going to hurt anything so that's good. It may even deter small number of opportunists or help with small dollar insurance claims. I'm not convinced it will help in a significant and noticeable way unless eBay is going to review these photos and do something.

OK, you uploaded photos of dead ducks? Let's deny your return and tell the seller they don't have to refund you - and since we protected the seller, that means we'll also absorb the loss if a chargeback is filed and the bank rules in the buyer's favor. I don't see that happening.

[eleanor*rigby]

I have neither a digital camera nor a phone with a camera. Will I just be disallowed from requesting a return?

[katzrul15]

---

@eleanor*rigby wrote:

I have neither a digital camera nor a phone with a camera. Will I just be disallowed from requesting a return?

---

On a SNAD, I think "Yes".  On a standard return, I would think "no".

When I tested this, it would not let me advance without uploading pix of the "damage" I was wanting to outline as the reason for the SNAD.  I would presume if you chose fake, non-authentic, it would require as well.

This might be a silly question - how do you take the pictures of the items you list for sale?