Open Video Game Exchange

[Tessa120]

But fair is fair. How can you look at customer A and tell that person that you are waiving policy but then look at the very next customer who wants to do the same thing and say nope, policy stands?

How can you say that being fair is arbitrary treatment that is weighted and therefore unfair?

What criteria are you using, both the criteria you admit to yourself and the criteria of "something makes me not like this person" or "this person is a longtime friend I just met today"?

Fair is fair, and that's why rules are rules. To protect the company from bias complaints, to protect the company from people like you making biased decisions, to protect the company from other guests seeing your preferential treatment and realizing they will be treated worse than other customers and going where they won't be treated worse.

It seems odd you would say that alienating a good customer is bad when you are willing to alienate 5 good customers because they don't get the special exceptions, they have to stick with the standard policy and develop heartburn as they watch someone get an override.

And Mom thinking a game is too mature for her kid is always a super dumb reason. If she bought it in a brain dead moment then her stupidity is not worth losing money. Caveat Emptor.
And of course someone will cry "someone else snuck it in the home." If it was someone else then why did she let the shrink wrap be opened before checking it out?
And even if Mommy instinct is to let a kid play an unknown game without researching first and then clutch pearls when she sees what's on the screen, she's not out of money, so why try and game the system instead of tossing in the trash?

 

[happygoth]

@60SecondsRemaining , what Tessa said. Picking and choosing which customers get to benefit from one's subjective opinion is discrimination. Talk about opening up a can of worms.

 

[Tessa120]

And I'm going to be that bitch who goes there -

Are you willing to bet not just your job and your reputation but all of Target that your subjective opinion will never, ever include anything about the person's appearance, manner of dress, or behavior? Not even unconsciously when you are trying to weigh the details and choices?

 

[buliSBI]

Parents must not purchase Grand Theft Auto for their 10yo.

 

[Tessa120]

Parents must not purchase Grand Theft Auto for their 10yo.

Why?

 

[redeye58]

I'll admit to being a sneaky bitch one time.
Mom & her tweenish aged son were wanting to return a set of DVDs because 'one was missing'; the tape was still across the top but they'd removed the shrink wrap, pried open the bottom & 'discovered' one missing.
I said we could swap it out if they could bring one up for me.
As they came toward the front, they waved it to me while heading for the door saying thanks.
The door sensor went off & I had caught up to them to say that I needed to demagnitize it.
While doing so, I cut through the wrapper & opened the case; the mom was livid.
"Why did you do that?!"
"To make sure all the discs were there, of course! Wouldn't want a repeat requiring you to have to come back again." (said with a smile).
They looked rather cheesed when I handed back their OPENED set.

 

[Amanda Cantwell]

I'll admit to being a sneaky bitch one time.
Mom & her tweenish aged son were wanting to return a set of DVDs because 'one was missing'; the tape was still across the top but they'd removed the shrink wrap, pried open the bottom & 'discovered' one missing.
I said we could swap it out if they could bring one up for me.
As they came toward the front, they waved it to me while heading for the door saying thanks.
The door sensor went off & I had caught up to them to say that I needed to demagnitize it.
While doing so, I cut through the wrapper & opened the case; the mom was livid.
"Why did you do that?!"
"To make sure all the discs were there, of course! Wouldn't want a repeat requiring you to have to come back again." (said with a smile).
They looked rather cheesed when I handed back their OPENED set.

Iconic bc they were definitely gonna return that unopened set for a full refund

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

And I'm going to be that bitch who goes there -

Are you willing to bet not just your job and your reputation but all of Target that your subjective opinion will never, ever include anything about the person's appearance, manner of dress, or behavior? Not even unconsciously

By what other standard should you judge a person in this setting? A video game is a poor scenario for this, so let's use another one.

Person A comes in and is dressed normally. They pull an old receipt out of their purse and explain to me they bought these sheets last year, and left them in their trunk and never got around to returning them. Do I override and let them return them? Yes - because the story is plausible and as the manager, I feel this is a viable situation. Do I know for sure they're telling the truth? No, I don't. Do I give a shit? Nope. To me the risk of them lying is worth taking the return, because if they're telling the truth, it fosters good will with that customer. They're more likely to shop here over a competitor.

Behind her is Person B, he comes in and he's dressed like he just rolled out of a dumpster, has a receipt covered in trash juice, can't form a coherent sentence, and tells me he wants to return a set of sheets. His receipt is well past expired and he says "I got them as a gift". He doesn't want to take no for an answer because he saw me do it for Person A. Do I override and let him return them? No. Why? Because the situation presented to me, as the manager, tells me that he's not being up front with me. Do I know for sure? No, probably not. Do I give a shit? No, definitely not.

Is Person B going to sue Target for discrimination? On what grounds? A judge is going to do the exact same thing I did, which is weigh the situation and make a decision. Target employs managers to manage people and situations. Following policy in such a rigid sense all of the time is just a recipe for conflict. You have to use your judgement sometimes.

 

[redeye58]

Iconic bc they were definitely gonna return that unopened set for a full refund

You know it

 

[Tessa120]

So nicely dressed people don't steal? I guess that means white collar crime is a figment of my imagination.

Person A could easily have been stealing, and dressing up a bit to make them seem less thieving. Person B could have a multitude of reasons, from recent homelessness to mental illness to drug addiction to hoarding, that would explain appearance and all would easily be a logical and reasonable explanation for owning the sheets but not looking like they own them.

So you are not evaluating why the two people have the sheets. You are showing bias and other sorts of discrimination to justify why a nice looking guy couldn't be stealing and a rough looking guy must be stealing. That is ethically wrong, and while I don't have a law degree, I do know that discriminating on the basis of several things is illegal, even for private businesses. Pretty sure that Person B could get a pretty penny out of Target because you judged wrongly and let the thief do the return but stopped the legitimate person based solely discriminatory factors.

 

[Amanda Cantwell]

I would’ve denied both, but offered a no receipt return for both person a and b. I don’t override because “I forgot my item”. You had 90 days. Sorry. Here’s a gift card.

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

So nicely dressed people don't steal? I guess that means white collar crime is a figment of my imagination.

Person A could easily have been stealing, and dressing up a bit to make them seem less thieving. Person B could have a multitude of reasons, from recent homelessness to mental illness to drug addiction to hoarding, that would explain appearance and all would easily be a logical and reasonable explanation for owning the sheets but not looking like they own them.

So you are not evaluating why the two people have the sheets. You are showing bias and other sorts of discrimination to justify why a nice looking guy couldn't be stealing and a rough looking guy must be stealing. That is ethically wrong, and while I don't have a law degree, I do know that discriminating on the basis of several things is illegal, even for private businesses. Pretty sure that Person B could get a pretty penny out of Target because you judged wrongly and let the thief do the return but stopped the legitimate person based solely discriminatory factors.

I already established that they could be lying.

I also established that yes I am biased in that situation, as most would be.

Furthermore I established that I didn't give a shit.

PS: Criminal profiling, that is to say profiling unrelated to race, gender, religion, creed, or affiliation, is not illegal. The law is also largely irrelevant here because it would be a civil matter and not a criminal one.

The irony of this is you're applying your own bias to this situation by viewing it through the lens of your own perception, which is a perfectly normal thing to do. But you have to be self aware when doing it.

 

[Tessa120]

The right thing though is to get rid of bias completely. That's why there are policies. That's why they should be adhered to, they are colorblind in all ways, and therefore do not discrimination against one person or towards another.

 

[Amanda Cantwell]

The right thing though is to get rid of bias completely. That's why there are policies. That's why they should be adhered to, they are colorblind in all ways, and therefore do not discrimination against one person or towards another.

I agree policies, especially in this example case, should be adhered to. Be very careful in calling policies colorblind though. seemingly “colorblind” policies can be, well, not.

 

[happygoth]

Yeah those sheets bought last year should not be accepted for return, period. They are most likely salvage and the guest should be sent packing. I thought we were stricter about things like that.

 

[Amanda Cantwell]

Yeah those sheets bought last year should not be accepted for return, period. They are most likely salvage and the guest should be sent packing. I thought we were stricter about things like that.

Well, if they’re under $75, we should offer a no receipt return on merch card. That shouldn’t be overridden though if POS declines if they’ve already hit their limit.

 

[FelixHA]

oh thank you for info

 

[jackandcat]

It's a policy - not a rule. This is extremely obtuse thinking and a poor business mindset. You need to interpret your policies based on the situation in front of you. If it were meant to be rigid, it wouldn't have an override option. Alienating a good customer in a poor situation over a policy - especially when you have the ability to make the judgement call and manage it - is far more damaging to your business than eating a one time return.

Incorrect. Media companies who find out about stores taking product returns can and do impose steep fines or take them to court. Software and entertainment media companies force retailers to sign a contract prohibiting product returns except defective items (and sometimes the software or media actually IS defective, FYI).

This is like the "Embargo" on street-dated merchandise. The fines and lawsuits can be a huge hassle for Target. It just takes one jerkwad who posts on social media how they "got away with" getting a refund on a video game to spoil it for everyone else. These rules have been around for 40 years, Target has been through this rodeo before. The contract between Target as reseller and the Media Company prohibits a guest/customer from demanding a refund or substituting a different title, it would be breach of contract for Target.

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

Incorrect. Media companies who find out about stores taking product returns can and do impose steep fines or take them to court. Software and entertainment media companies force retailers to sign a contract prohibiting product returns except defective items (and sometimes the software or media actually IS defective, FYI).

This is like the "Embargo" on street-dated merchandise. The fines and lawsuits can be a huge hassle for Target. It just takes one jerkwad who posts on social media how they "got away with" getting a refund on a video game to spoil it for everyone else. These rules have been around for 40 years, Target has been through this rodeo before. The contract between Target as reseller and the Media Company prohibits a guest/customer from demanding a refund or substituting a different title, it would be breach of contract for Target.

Contracts of scale are subject to good faith and/or quantity provisions to account for situations like this.

That aside, it's still a civil litigation and would be subject to ruling by a judge based on the situational evidence presented. Lets assume that enough of these situations existed (unlikely) to actually cause Target to go down that road:

A. No company is taking Target to court over something so menial. They would encounter a wall of lawyers and most likely would be buried and never win.
B. Even if they won, the lawsuit itself would be a net loss. It's a poor business choice.

This post does a good job of explaining why is not against any laws to either return or accept returns on media. There are sources linked within.

 

[Tessa120]

The company would have deeper pockets than Target. These are the major game, music and film companies. Target can't pay for as good of lawyers but does have enough cash to be an attractive message. And the contractual fines are far higher than what any guest would spend.

 

[CeeCee]

Yeah those sheets bought last year should not be accepted for return, period. They are most likely salvage and the guest should be sent packing. I thought we were stricter about things like that.

I’m pretty sure that we only sell our own brand of sheets which have a one year return period if you have the receipt. All Target owned brands have a one year return policy. But only if you still have the receipt.

 

[Amanda Cantwell]

I’m pretty sure that we only sell our own brand of sheets which have a one year return period if you have the receipt. All Target owned brands have a one year return policy. But only if you still have the receipt.

We sell other brands. Fieldcrest for example

 

[jackandcat]

In an ideal world, entertainment media companies would not force compliance with this 40-year-old policy, but they have a vested interest in preventing unauthorized duplication. I guess some of you think people should be free to save a purchased game or program onto their device, or play the game/movie multiple times until they got tired of it, then return the purchased media for a refund. If not restricted by a very strict "No Returns" policy, allowing unrestricted media product returns would put those media companies out of business. This is no different than shoplifting.

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

The company would have deeper pockets than Target. These are the major game, music and film companies. Target can't pay for as good of lawyers but does have enough cash to be an attractive message. And the contractual fines are far higher than what any guest would spend.

It isn't about whos pockets are deeper. It's about the financial risk involved in pursuit of a civil lawsuit for contract breach of a macro level contract at a micro level.


The selling company most certainly can stipulate that you can't accept returns (though I would imagine there are good faith or quantity clauses). That aside it's not defensible in this case as UCITA section 209 specifically says that consumers are entitled to refunds on electronic goods on the basis of satisfaction if no opportunity is made available to demo a product/software prior to purchase. The language in the law is a little more verbose, but this is essentially what it says. Any major company knows this, so it's less about whose pockets are deeper when both pockets are functionally infinitely deep. It's more about the financial risk of bringing a breach of contract suit for a macro level contract for a micro level breach. It would cost far more money than what would be recovered, it's a poor business decision.

The specific text I referenced is in Section 209/210 of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
"
If a licensee (the customer) does not have an opportunity to review a mass-market license or a copy of it (the game) before becoming obligated to pay and does not agree, by manifesting assent or otherwise, to the license after having that opportunity (to say, after purchasing), the licensee is entitled to a return under Section 112
"

 

[jackandcat]

@60Seconds: I like your legal analysis, though I know that media companies occasionally pursue a breach-of-contract suits just so they can deter "death by a thousand cuts" of their intellectual property rights. Which leads me to ask: what chapter of the humongous United States Code is this legislation located at, I'd love to take a glance for my own interest.

Rest assured I would never, ever volunteer this information to a guest. Otherwise, if it gets out on social media then it creates a "death by a thousand cuts" erosion of the official rules and adds "gasoline to the fire" of legal pressure from the media companies.