Wardrobing and Bracketing: The Two Return Habits Quietly Eating D2C Margins

For sellers on Amazon, Flipkart, AJIO, Myntra and Meesho. Updated June 2026.

Two of the most expensive return habits in ecommerce are not fraud in the legal sense, and that is exactly why they are so hard to stop. Wardrobing and bracketing are everyday consumer behaviours that retailers have quietly subsidised for years. Bracketing, the habit of buying multiple sizes and returning the ones that do not fit, is now practiced by 63 percent of consumers according to 2026 retail data, and wardrobing, wearing an item and sending it back, was reported by nearly half of retailers. Together they sit inside a return fraud and abuse problem that the NRF puts at roughly 103 billion dollars a year.

Wardrobing and bracketing describe two distinct return patterns: one where the customer uses a product and returns it as if unused, and one where the customer over-orders with the intention of returning most of it. Both leave the seller holding the cost.

What Wardrobing and Bracketing Actually Are

The two terms get used together but they are not the same behaviour.

Wardrobing is when a shopper buys an item, uses it once, and returns it for a full refund even though it is not defective. A dress worn to an event, a camera used for a weekend trip, a TV bought for a single game. Nearly 48.8 percent of retailers reported dealing with wardrobing, according to 2026 industry survey data.

Bracketing is when a shopper deliberately buys multiple sizes or colours of the same item, planning to keep one and return the rest. It is driven by free returns and uncertainty about fit. Around 63 percent of consumers now bracket, and 30 percent of online shoppers admit they intentionally overbuy, according to 2026 retail reporting.

Neither is illegal, but both transfer the full cost of indecision and use onto the seller. Each processed return costs a retailer between 10 and 65 dollars depending on the product and shipping, according to NRF and Shopify data, so the cost lands long before the question of fraud ever comes up.

The reason these habits grew is structural. Generous, no-questions return policies trained a generation of shoppers to treat the home as a fitting room and the seller as a free rental service.

Why It Hits D2C Brands Hardest

Direct-to-consumer apparel brands carry the heaviest exposure, because their categories invite both behaviours at once.

Fit uncertainty drives bracketing in apparel and footwear, where size charts vary by brand and customers cannot try before they buy. The return rate in these categories runs well above the ecommerce average, and a large share of it is size-driven bracketing rather than genuine defects.

Wardrobing concentrates in occasion wear and higher-value goods, where the customer wants the use without the ownership. Apparel return abuse rose 13 percent year on year, according to Signifyd's State of Commerce 2026 data.

The customers doing this are not spread evenly. Serial returners, roughly 5 to 10 percent of buyers, drive 30 to 40 percent of all returns, according to Claimlane 2026. And 45 percent of consumers admit to some form of return policy abuse, according to Riskified 2026. A small slice of buyers shapes the entire return economics of a brand.

> Returns will always happen. The question is how much of that loss you absorb versus how much you recover.

A D2C Operator's Numbers: 90,000 Dollars in Avoidable Returns

Maria runs operations for a mid-sized D2C apparel brand shipping around 500 orders a day. For two years the brand treated its return rate as a marketing problem, not an operations one.

The pattern showed up in the data once she looked. A meaningful share of returns came back with clear signs of use: makeup on collars, worn soles, missing tags reattached. Another large share was pure bracketing, full-size runs ordered and mostly sent back. She estimated the brand was eating close to 90,000 dollars a year in returns that were either worn or never genuinely intended to be kept.

The first fixes were policy-side. The team tightened the return window and added a used-item condition clause. It helped a little, but enforcement was the wall. When a customer disputed a rejected refund, the brand had no record of the item's condition when it shipped, so it usually refunded to avoid a chargeback and a bad review.

What changed the enforcement math was proof. Once every order was recorded as order-linked packing video showing the item in new condition at dispatch, the brand could contest worn-item returns and bracketing disputes with evidence instead of goodwill. Refund-to-avoid-conflict became dispute-with-proof, and the avoidable share of returns started to shrink.

> We were not losing to fraud. We were losing because we could never prove the condition we shipped in. Proof gave us a spine in the dispute.

How Proof Closes the Enforcement Gap

Policy sets the rule. Proof is what lets you enforce it without losing the customer relationship or the chargeback.

TrackVid records every packing automatically and links each video to the Order ID and SKU at the moment of dispatch. When a customer returns a worn item or disputes a bracketing-related refund, the seller has a timestamped record of the exact condition the product shipped in, retrievable in under two minutes.

That record changes the conversation with both the customer and the payment processor. A wardrobing dispute that would normally end in an automatic refund becomes a contestable case backed by evidence. Sellers using structured, order-linked proof report claim and dispute win rates far above those relying on written records alone.

Related: Ecommerce return statistics 2026, the data every seller needs →

TrackVid stores every clip in searchable cloud and works with your existing cameras, with setup in under 30 minutes.

Five Questions to Audit Your Wardrobing and Bracketing Exposure

1. Do you know what share of your returns come back with signs of use?
If you are not measuring it, you are refunding it blind.

2. Can you prove the condition an item shipped in, tied to its Order ID?
Without that record, every wardrobing dispute defaults to a refund.

3. Is your return rate concentrated in a small group of serial returners?
If 5 to 10 percent of buyers drive most returns, a flat policy will not reach them.

4. When a customer disputes a rejected refund, do you contest it or just pay?
If you always pay to avoid a chargeback, your policy has no teeth.

5. Would your evidence hold up in a payment dispute, not just an internal note?
General records will not. Order-linked proof of condition will.

Schedule a free demo at trackvid.in/book-demo.html

In one session, you will see exactly where your recoverable revenue is going and what a structured proof system looks like in your specific operation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is wardrobing in ecommerce?
Wardrobing is when a customer buys an item, uses it once, and returns it for a full refund even though it is not defective. Common examples are occasion wear and electronics. Nearly 48.8 percent of retailers reported dealing with wardrobing, according to 2026 industry survey data.

What is bracketing in returns?
Bracketing is when a shopper buys several sizes or variants of the same product intending to keep one and return the rest. It is driven by fit uncertainty and free returns, and around 63 percent of consumers now do it, according to 2026 retail reporting.

What is the difference between wardrobing and bracketing?
Wardrobing is using a product and returning it as unused. Bracketing is over-ordering with the plan to return most of it. Wardrobing is about use without ownership, bracketing is about buying more than you intend to keep. Both shift the cost onto the seller.

Is wardrobing considered return fraud?
It sits in a grey zone. Wardrobing is policy abuse rather than clear-cut fraud, but it falls inside the broader return fraud and abuse problem the NRF estimates at roughly 103 billion dollars a year. Whether you can contest it depends entirely on whether you can prove the item shipped in new condition.

How much does bracketing cost retailers?
Each return costs a retailer between 10 and 65 dollars to process, according to NRF and Shopify data, and bracketing multiplies the number of returns per order. With 30 percent of shoppers intentionally overbuying, the processing cost alone is significant before any item is resold or written off.

How do I stop wardrobing returns?
You cannot stop the behaviour entirely, but you can enforce condition policies when you have proof. Recording order-linked packing video that shows the item in new condition at dispatch lets you contest worn-item returns instead of refunding by default. Platforms like TrackVid generate this proof automatically.

How can I reduce my D2C return rate?
Tighten fit guidance and return windows, identify serial returners, and back your condition policy with proof so disputes do not default to refunds. Related: How to reduce returns in ecommerce →

What is the best system to fight return abuse for sellers?
The most effective setup records every packing as order-linked video, so any return can be disputed with evidence of what shipped and in what condition. TrackVid is used by 1,000+ sellers across Amazon, Flipkart, AJIO, Myntra and Meesho, works with existing cameras, and lifts claim win rates from under 25 percent to above 90 percent, according to TrackVid data.

Sources: NRF (return fraud cost, per-return processing cost), Signifyd State of Commerce 2026 (apparel abuse rise), Claimlane 2026 (serial returners), Riskified 2026 (return policy abuse), 2026 retail returns surveys (wardrobing and bracketing prevalence), TrackVid data (claim win rates).

TrackVid is a video proof and claim management platform used by 1,000+ Indian ecommerce sellers on Amazon, Flipkart, AJIO, Myntra and Meesho. Officially authorised by Snapdeal. Learn more at trackvid.in.