Blocked from shopping online at Nordstromrack.com and Hautelook.com
- Thread starter skim927
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
The man who sends those letters “Adam Drake” has court and criminal records. I can’t believe Nordstrom would employ such #metoo unethical people. He has public court records in the state of Washington and Virginia. Google his profile.
any updates on how exactly they “block” - what happens when you try to order online again?
any updates on how exactly they “block” - what happens when you try to order online again?
No but I received a ban letter after returning several formal dresses I ordered trying to find a dress for a formal ball. I’m still trying to figure out how long the ban is or if there is a way around it, like with a new email, cc number, address, etc. I definitely won’t be making as many returns in the future, but I just don’t understand why they didn’t warn me or limit returns instead of just completely banning me from shopping at all.
I would really love to hear from anyone that was banned whether or not they were eventually allowed to shop at the store again or if they found a way around it such as new email or cc or even change in address or phone number etc.
I thought that type of dress is not returnable? Can you give more details? I hope someone has a positive answer for you, but I don't recall anyone posting that they had the ban lifted or figured a workaround.
They're not very strict about enforcing the ban. They also seem to block people at random. My mom's account was blocked and she's not very tech savvy so I know she maybe placed one order before she forgot her password. She couldn't log back in so when she called CS they told her she was blocked and encouraged her to create a new account with a different e-mail address. My online account was blocked several years ago before they sent letters (I received an e-mail) but I was able to create a new account recently using a new e-mail address.
It is returnable if the tags are all still attached which mine were. They put special tags on those dresses. If they don’t want them returned they shouldn’t give the option. They were returned in pristine condition within a few days of me trying them. I returned to brick and mortar store so it’s my understanding that they put them on the floor right? If so, they probably ultimately sold more of these dresses than they would have due to me returning them because then people can actually try those on!!! But that’s the activity that ultimately resulted in the banning. I think that’s so unreasonable. I would like to be able to shop at Nordstrom when absolutely necessary but will definitely buy elsewhere when I can out of principle. Which to be honest, 100% of the products I have bought there can be bought elsewhere. I was more concerned about the ban affecting future members of my household. I will say I never got a warning about anything before the letter. Also, I will say I ordered several dresses from saks and they had no issue. However, I did keep one of their dresses and alter it there so there’s that and that is where I will be going for any future formals.
All this said and I placed an order for some cosmetics since I got the letter and it shipped so there’s that!
This has definitely made me rethink how much info I give to stores though. I think I will start paying cash and also choosing ship to store options when possible to avoid giving my address. I luckily live in a large city where this is possible.
Last edited:
@Bj9999 what was your purchase and return history before this event? Is it possible you already had a higher than normal return rate? Rack online seems to have certain things they don’t like that they deem fraudulent or excessive but they aren’t transparent about what those activities are.
There are items at Rack online that aren’t returnable, but it will say so on your order confirmation.
There are items at Rack online that aren’t returnable, but it will say so on your order confirmation.
I did have a high return history but have been shopping there for 10 years with no change in the way I shop. I think this pushed it over the edge I believe due to the price of the items. A formal dress is 300-500 and if I order a few to try it adds up quick. I think before the $$ I was spending made up for any returns. When I returned these it was much more $$$ of course than any previous returns. Plus I usually buy all cosmetics there and never return. Also the only other event that could be excessive was a couple years ago when I ordered a bunch of shoes to try for my wedding dress. I did keep a pair of those. No warning with those returns. So, no warning in 10yrs and now this? I understand the need to ban shoppers if they are fraudulent or wearing and returning items but that was not the case. I believe in limits but I also believe in transparency with a company. And I believe a shopping ban on an entire household is excessive and wrong when there is not fraudulent or criminal activity. A warning would be have been headed if received. But this from a company that’s slogan is basically “free shipping, free returns, all the time” is ridiculous. They are luring shoppers with this slogan and then penalizing honest customers that don’t fall within certain parameters that they have set and hide from the public. Overall it has been a lesson in not joining these “point clubs” they push in your face and also shopping with cash and in store when you can. This is just absurd in the digital age. If they want to place a limit on returns then by all means do so but be honest and transparent about it.
Last edited:
Other companies use non-public algorithms to ban customers and/or deny returns. And no company makes the limits public. If they did, those who they consider to be "problem customers" would continue to do as they'd always done, stopping at the limit.
Many companies also subscribe to The Retail Equation, a company that does the number crunching and evaluating of patterns for the companies. The Retail Equation roots out the unwanted customers, fraudulent or not.
Many companies also subscribe to The Retail Equation, a company that does the number crunching and evaluating of patterns for the companies. The Retail Equation roots out the unwanted customers, fraudulent or not.
I’ve never been banned from another store, I do most of my shopping at Anthropologie and I know I’ve made many more returns there but just not as many high dollar items as the dresses I got at Nordstrom since these were special occasion dresses.
This is like black mirror/big brother and also bait and switch. I have never looked up this issue and was SHOCKED because I’ve never had a problem anywhere before. I did read about the retail tracker. Even if companies don’t publicize the specific parameters they could send warnings to customers or even make it more plainly stated that they monitor this type of activity and that it can be used against you. That way customers can still be free to shop in a way that benefits both them and the company. If a company is looking for customers that don’t return anything well then this WILL eventually be a bigger issue. More and more people are shopping online due to Covid and they can’t expect people to keep everything they order when they can’t try it on. Also stores are carrying less and less options in store which basically forces you to shop online or order from a warehouse. So now the option to even try on is going to be slowly taken away. Eventually you’ll be stuck with what you get even if you never had a chance to try it in a store. We are giving more and more power to these companies and they limit our choices more and more so that they can make more and more money. It’s just a powerful company abusing their power and luring you in by saying “wow look at all these options we have, we will ship it for you for free and then you return it for free woo hoo shop with us” and then they basically ban you like a criminal if you don’t meet their criteria? They are lowering shopping volume at other retailers gradually by being powerful and lucrative enough to offer this perk. I bet as soon as enough of competing retailers go out of business they will tighten up their policies and take away these perks or ban more customers randomly without warning. Or people will abide by the new criteria because other options will be eliminated and they have no choice. Control control control. It’s only going to get worse..... definitely made me take a step back and think about the level of monitoring companies and the internet do and how you can be penalized without warning even when you have never done fraudulent things. Scary stuff if you start applying it to other things but that’s my opinion.
Also, what’s wrong with them making these parameters known? It was mentioned because then shoppers would continue to shop the same way.... well so what? If they place limits and the people stay within those limits then both shopper and company would benefit.... it’s the same as having a 30 versus 90 day return policy or even small boutiques that I have shopped at that only offer store credit. The lack of transparency is the most concerning thing since I didn’t even know these issues existed with companies prior to receiving the email. I’m a rule follower, set rules and I’ll follow. I have learned now to fly under the radar with companies and make cash purposes. All these point systems, credit cards, club rewards etc are just a way to have excess control over you. You think you’re benefiting and you may be slightly with $5 here and there. But really they are just more interested in keeping tabs on you. That’s scary for a person like me that is penalized and never done anything criminal/fraudulent with retail.
I’ve already figured out several ways around this “ban” and even made a purchase online since then... I bet nothing will happen really until I try to make a return for something purchased with my old account info and then they’ll refuse it. Which is fine. I won’t buy anything that I may need to return there and if I do it will be in store with cash! I read that most stores only ask for license if you are returning without receipt or getting a store credit. I won’t be showing any store my license for anything other than verifying identity for credit card that’s for sure.
This is like black mirror/big brother and also bait and switch. I have never looked up this issue and was SHOCKED because I’ve never had a problem anywhere before. I did read about the retail tracker. Even if companies don’t publicize the specific parameters they could send warnings to customers or even make it more plainly stated that they monitor this type of activity and that it can be used against you. That way customers can still be free to shop in a way that benefits both them and the company. If a company is looking for customers that don’t return anything well then this WILL eventually be a bigger issue. More and more people are shopping online due to Covid and they can’t expect people to keep everything they order when they can’t try it on. Also stores are carrying less and less options in store which basically forces you to shop online or order from a warehouse. So now the option to even try on is going to be slowly taken away. Eventually you’ll be stuck with what you get even if you never had a chance to try it in a store. We are giving more and more power to these companies and they limit our choices more and more so that they can make more and more money. It’s just a powerful company abusing their power and luring you in by saying “wow look at all these options we have, we will ship it for you for free and then you return it for free woo hoo shop with us” and then they basically ban you like a criminal if you don’t meet their criteria? They are lowering shopping volume at other retailers gradually by being powerful and lucrative enough to offer this perk. I bet as soon as enough of competing retailers go out of business they will tighten up their policies and take away these perks or ban more customers randomly without warning. Or people will abide by the new criteria because other options will be eliminated and they have no choice. Control control control. It’s only going to get worse..... definitely made me take a step back and think about the level of monitoring companies and the internet do and how you can be penalized without warning even when you have never done fraudulent things. Scary stuff if you start applying it to other things but that’s my opinion.
Also, what’s wrong with them making these parameters known? It was mentioned because then shoppers would continue to shop the same way.... well so what? If they place limits and the people stay within those limits then both shopper and company would benefit.... it’s the same as having a 30 versus 90 day return policy or even small boutiques that I have shopped at that only offer store credit. The lack of transparency is the most concerning thing since I didn’t even know these issues existed with companies prior to receiving the email. I’m a rule follower, set rules and I’ll follow. I have learned now to fly under the radar with companies and make cash purposes. All these point systems, credit cards, club rewards etc are just a way to have excess control over you. You think you’re benefiting and you may be slightly with $5 here and there. But really they are just more interested in keeping tabs on you. That’s scary for a person like me that is penalized and never done anything criminal/fraudulent with retail.
I’ve already figured out several ways around this “ban” and even made a purchase online since then... I bet nothing will happen really until I try to make a return for something purchased with my old account info and then they’ll refuse it. Which is fine. I won’t buy anything that I may need to return there and if I do it will be in store with cash! I read that most stores only ask for license if you are returning without receipt or getting a store credit. I won’t be showing any store my license for anything other than verifying identity for credit card that’s for sure.
Last edited:
I will be shopping there as little as possible from here forward but don’t want anyone in my household to be affected.
Yes no one forces you to shop there but also if there is an item that you want that is carried there (for instance I have male relatives that like the 1901 brand) then it is frustrating to not be able to go there as an option. You’re right I have a lot of options luckily but if this had happened and I did not live in a big city it would be even more upsetting. I also don’t like being treated like i did something wrong when they are the ones that set their policies to begin with and I shopped within those policies (they have as a headliner on the top of their page free shipping free returns all the time) You’re right no one is forcing me to shop there and stores can set their policies as they please but it’s a slippery slope when powerful companies ban honest customers from shopping and do it in a sneaky way. When will other companies follow suit? Right now it’s just clothing and stuff that isn’t critical to life but how far could something like this reach? The lack of transparency and the banning that can occur in this digital age with the way people can be tracked I think it the most concerning thing of all. If I had not created an account, not used their app, and shopped with cash more would this have happened even if my shopping activity was the same? I think not. Definitely makes me rethink the way I live in this digital age. Even if you’re not doing anything criminal you can be targeted as such. There’s an episode in black mirror that this makes me think of.
I’ve digressed though. I really wanted to know in the beginning if anyone had tried to shop after the ban or created a new account. I know some in my household that will want to shop there in the future and wanted to make sure there was a way for them to shop without getting flagged.
Last edited:
@Bj9999 I'm glad you've joined us on this forum and engaged in this lively debate. You make many great points.
I'm not banned anywhere (yet), but I'm concerned because back around 2016 or 2017 I wanted a particular peacoat exclusively sold by Nordstroms and had to order 4 to keep 1. The first order was one each of XS and S sizing -- decided that the XS fit better, at $700 per, Made in USA. But the shoulders were stitched crooked and therefore hung crooked from the coathanger (and obviously on my body), so I returned both and ordered another XS. Again, there was crooked stitching but this time at the front. Not quite luxury-brand expensive, but not fast fashion either, and the inconsistency was surprising. Finally the 4th one was acceptable. I was persistent because it was a staple item I truly needed in my wardrobe...the only reason I returned so many was that the others were defective, the type of defects I wouldn't see on e.g. a $100 Gap denim jacket! But this sort of history of buying/returning probably looks problematic from a numbers-crunching spreadsheet analysis.
If I had been banned on this basis, I would have been pissed offff. It was never my intention to inconvenience or waste Nordstrom or anyone's resources...but their quality control was so bad on an otherwise LOVELY item.
Like you, I am abhorrent of unethical or inconsiderate customer habits that don't serve a win-win relationship between customers and retailers. Such as those who are engaging in fraud, shoplifting, wearing single-occasion expensive clothing with tags left on to return and refund, etc. Because it means that generous policies are being abused and will eventually be reduced for *all*. It also means honest customers may end up paying elevated prices in the future, or simply don't end up being able to buy what they wanted to keep because a hoarder/impulse buyer bought up the stock while intending to return later...instead of the good customers getting what they wanted, and the retailer making their fair profits.
Now, the reflex policies by the retailers might be catching innocents too.
In another sphere of interest, I'm into financial products such as bank accounts, credit cards, etc. Some acquaintances in one of my chat groups got banned by American Express for abusive, repeat welcome bonuses they gamed to acquire...others for manufacturing ways to create cashback/points rewards. These account reviews and shutdowns have really ramped up since Fall 2019 and in my opinion are completely deserved. However, I am seeing some anecdotes of completely innocent, newer customers getting banned soon after an account was opened, which is not only a shame but will make me even more careful going forward.
Finally, what you say about the decreased selection of retailers and increasing % of merchandise being online-only is indeed a problem. I'm Canadian by birth but have some connections to the US and therefore do (did) a lot of shopping cross-border, to different addresses. One Canadian manufacturer of winter boots makers, I noticed, sold only a limited selection on their Canadian website. The vast majority of their items at all different sizes were sold at Nordstrom (US website), or Zappos. That's annoying, because I had to pay more than the original Canadian price due to currency conversions. But also, if someone were banned from Nordstrom or Amazon (for Zappos), it means that the points of access for even local products is shrinking and converging onto only a few retailers.
*Also wanted to make it clear that I'm not calling anyone here unethical just because they purchased items wanting to try on and see if they fit/looked good, and intending to keep what they thought would look good...but ended up returning a high %. That is simply the nature of online clothes shopping, which is unfortunate. I really try to minimize online shopping for clothes.
I'm not banned anywhere (yet), but I'm concerned because back around 2016 or 2017 I wanted a particular peacoat exclusively sold by Nordstroms and had to order 4 to keep 1. The first order was one each of XS and S sizing -- decided that the XS fit better, at $700 per, Made in USA. But the shoulders were stitched crooked and therefore hung crooked from the coathanger (and obviously on my body), so I returned both and ordered another XS. Again, there was crooked stitching but this time at the front. Not quite luxury-brand expensive, but not fast fashion either, and the inconsistency was surprising. Finally the 4th one was acceptable. I was persistent because it was a staple item I truly needed in my wardrobe...the only reason I returned so many was that the others were defective, the type of defects I wouldn't see on e.g. a $100 Gap denim jacket! But this sort of history of buying/returning probably looks problematic from a numbers-crunching spreadsheet analysis.
If I had been banned on this basis, I would have been pissed offff. It was never my intention to inconvenience or waste Nordstrom or anyone's resources...but their quality control was so bad on an otherwise LOVELY item.Like you, I am abhorrent of unethical or inconsiderate customer habits that don't serve a win-win relationship between customers and retailers. Such as those who are engaging in fraud, shoplifting, wearing single-occasion expensive clothing with tags left on to return and refund, etc. Because it means that generous policies are being abused and will eventually be reduced for *all*. It also means honest customers may end up paying elevated prices in the future, or simply don't end up being able to buy what they wanted to keep because a hoarder/impulse buyer bought up the stock while intending to return later...instead of the good customers getting what they wanted, and the retailer making their fair profits.
Now, the reflex policies by the retailers might be catching innocents too.
In another sphere of interest, I'm into financial products such as bank accounts, credit cards, etc. Some acquaintances in one of my chat groups got banned by American Express for abusive, repeat welcome bonuses they gamed to acquire...others for manufacturing ways to create cashback/points rewards. These account reviews and shutdowns have really ramped up since Fall 2019 and in my opinion are completely deserved. However, I am seeing some anecdotes of completely innocent, newer customers getting banned soon after an account was opened, which is not only a shame but will make me even more careful going forward.
Finally, what you say about the decreased selection of retailers and increasing % of merchandise being online-only is indeed a problem. I'm Canadian by birth but have some connections to the US and therefore do (did) a lot of shopping cross-border, to different addresses. One Canadian manufacturer of winter boots makers, I noticed, sold only a limited selection on their Canadian website. The vast majority of their items at all different sizes were sold at Nordstrom (US website), or Zappos. That's annoying, because I had to pay more than the original Canadian price due to currency conversions. But also, if someone were banned from Nordstrom or Amazon (for Zappos), it means that the points of access for even local products is shrinking and converging onto only a few retailers.
*Also wanted to make it clear that I'm not calling anyone here unethical just because they purchased items wanting to try on and see if they fit/looked good, and intending to keep what they thought would look good...but ended up returning a high %. That is simply the nature of online clothes shopping, which is unfortunate. I really try to minimize online shopping for clothes.
Last edited: