Retailers requiring police reports for missing items in orders

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How you can help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

Retailers requiring police reports for missing items in orders is a practice in which businesses ask customers to file a police report before they will process a refund or replacement for goods reported missing from a delivery.

How it works

When a customer reports that an item is missing from their order, the retailer initiates a claims process. Instead of immediately issuing a refund or replacement, the company requires the customer to take additional steps. The primary step is filing an official police report to document the missing item as a potential theft. The customer must then submit the police report number or a copy of the report to the retailer as proof.

Retailers often use these tactics to stall, prevent, or discourage the customer from getting their money back. They may also ask for other forms of verification, such as a government ID, to prevent fraud, though there is often no information on how that sensitive data is stored securely. These hurdles are designed to wear down the consumer, forcing them to either give up on the claim or resort to a chargeback from their bank, which can be a slow process that takes up to 90 days in some places.

Why it is a problem

This practice creates a significant imbalance in the customer experience. While retailers often streamline the purchasing process, sometimes allowing for one-click ordering, they impose a complex and burdensome process for resolving issues. The responsibility is shifted entirely onto the consumer, who has already paid for a product and must now prove they never received it, a task that can be difficult and time-consuming.

Furthermore, this policy may violate consumer protection laws in many regions, which state that it is the seller’s duty to ensure the merchandise is successfully delivered to the customer. By forcing a buyer to file a police report, retailers are essentially offloading their own responsibility for the delivery process. This also creates a risk for identity fraud. As highlighted in an article by nakedcapitalism, where a customer received a fraudulent request for their ID. Compounding the issue, Amazon's official return policy explicitly states they "may require additional information and documentation (such as a government-issued photo identification) during the processing of a return to help determine whether to provide a refund/replacement." This confirms the practice is officially sanctioned by the company, solidifying the burden of proof on the consumer and creating potential security risks.

This policy is often in direct violation of consumer protection laws. As reported by The Guardian, consumer rights experts argue that this practice shows "contempt for UK consumer law." Under legislation like the Consumer Rights Act, the legal responsibility for ensuring goods are delivered safely to the customer rests with the retailer, not the buyer. The article highlights that the burden of proof is on the retailer to show an item was successfully delivered, not on the customer to prove it was not. By demanding a police report, retailers are not only offloading their legal responsibility but also creating a frustrating barrier. The Guardian article details cases where police have refused to issue reports for missing parcels, stating that since the contract is between the buyer and seller, no crime has been committed against the buyer. This leaves the customer in an impossible situation, caught between a retailer's demands and the police's jurisdiction. This has led consumer experts to label the requirement as a "red herring" tactic used to stall complaints and discourage customers from pursuing their rightful refund or replacement.

Examples

Some examples of Retailers requiring police reports for missing items in orders include:

*
*
*

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.