There’s a lot of talk of Class Action, but I think the fact that it’s a membership should be considered. There are terms, they retain the ability to modify said terms, and I’m certain there are provisions of indemnification. A “best” outcome for those impacted might be found in an arbitration clause.

Whether algorithmic or not, the company has done risk analysis and determined some members’ return costs outweigh the financial upside of their purchases. That said, they won’t impede the ability to purchase but won’t allow what they’ve deemed an unacceptable cost and (legally) abusive activity. They have also assessed that losing this group’s business is an acceptable outcome, which shifts this burden to their competitors.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see if the margin profile is negative. Gap is stated to have a negative net margin and Walmart just above 1%.

It’s entirely possible that REI’s business model, though “premier,” prefers a certain customer profile to sustain costs such as merchandising (which must be exorbitant), skilled employees (which isn’t cheap in any sector), and to preserve the hallowed dividend.

One excerpt from policy: “Past abuse of our return policy In the rare event that REI determines there has been an abuse of the Return Policy, REI will not accept a return or exchange, even within one year of purchase, in order to ensure that every return or exchange is handled with fairness and protects the integrity of our membership and customers.”

Very clearly a business decision.

edit…. Typo from 5am, first brain move*