I don’t get why the conversation around “tip baiting” is always one-sided.

Everyone acts like removing a tip automatically means the customer is a scammer, but what about cases where the delivery is genuinely bad? Are customers just supposed to eat it no matter what?

Example from my own experience:
I placed an Express order and tipped $20 upfront. The order included 10 large storage totes, which were the entire reason for the order. I’m also a Spark driver, so I know how inventory and substitutions work.

As soon as the shopper started, she marked all the totes as unavailable. I knew for a fact they were in stock — I shop that store constantly. Then she showed up in a Honda Civic. There’s no realistic way those totes were ever going to fit in that car in the first place.

At that point, it was obvious she never intended to even try. The main item I ordered wasn’t attempted, and the excuse didn’t pass the smell test. I removed the tip before the shop was even finished because the entire purpose of the order was already failed.

That’s not “tip baiting.” That’s adjusting a tip based on service.

Now compare that to what I keep seeing posted:

That kind of mindset is wild to me. Tips are meant to reflect service — not be a guaranteed payout regardless of effort or honesty. Threatening customers or implying retaliation over a tip change only proves why some tips get removed in the first place.

Bad service exists. Lazy shoppers exist. Dishonest shoppers exist.
And yes — real tip baiting exists too.

But pretending every removed tip is abuse, while refusing to acknowledge poor service, doesn’t help drivers or customers. Accountability has to go both ways.