Fact-Checking Process

Most content sites say they fact-check. Few explain what that actually involves. We're publishing our process so you can evaluate our standards for yourself - and so you can tell us when we fall short of them.

Fact-checking at Retail Returns Policy is never performed by the person who wrote the draft. Every article is reviewed by a designated fact-checker before a senior editor signs off on publication.

Roles

• Draft author - the category-owning editor who researches and writes the article. Responsible for sourcing claims correctly during drafting, but not the final authority on accuracy.
• Designated fact-checker - typically our policy-verification editor (for return windows, fees, and receipt or condition rules) or our consumer-rights editor (for state return laws, dispute steps, and rights claims). The fact-checker is assigned based on the article's subject matter.
• Senior editor- reviews the fact-checker's notes, confirms all flagged items have been resolved, and gives final sign-off before publication.

No article is published without all three roles completing their part of the process.

Every Article

Regardless of content type, the fact-checker verifies:

• Policy specifics - return windows, receipt and condition rules, restocking fees, refund methods, exceptions, and accepted channels are cross-referenced against the retailer's official return terms at the time of publication.
• Claims attributed to our verification - any figure we present as verified (a 90-day window, a 15% restocking fee, a no-receipt rule) is traced back to the corresponding entry in our internal verification log and its source URL. If the log doesn't support the claim, the claim is revised or removed.
• Claims attributed to third parties - any data or finding we cite from an external source (an FTC guidance, a state attorney general, published consumer-protection law) is verified against the original source. We do not rely on secondhand reporting of third-party data.
• Comparisons and rankings - when we say one store has a more lenient return policy than another, the fact-checker confirms the comparison is based on each store's current official terms, verified on comparable dates.
• Dates and currency - every policy carries a “Last verified” date confirmed on the publication date. Because stores change their terms, we note the verification date and re-verify during scheduled refreshes.

Content-Type-Specific Checks

Different article types have additional verification requirements:

Retailer policy hubs- the fact-checker confirms the source of every figure (the store's official policy page, help center, or in-store signage), verifies the “Last verified” date is current, and cross-checks that the window, fees, and receipt rules match the retailer's terms as written today.

Store comparisons- the fact-checker verifies that every store in a ranking was verified within the current cycle, that head-to-head comparisons use each store's current official terms, and that no store has quietly changed its policy since it was last verified.

How-to and process guides - the fact-checker confirms that the described steps match the store's current return channels (in-store, by mail, curbside, drop-off), that label and packaging guidance is accurate, and that any deadline-sensitive guidance (window cutoffs, holiday extensions) is current.

Eligibility and concept articles - the fact-checker verifies that definitions (restocking fee, final sale, RMA, proof of purchase) are accurate, that no-receipt and condition rules reflect how stores actually apply them, and that examples cite a real, verified store policy.

Consumer-rights articles - the fact-checker confirms that each described right or remedy traces to current law or official guidance (state return laws, FTC, the store's own terms), and that any escalation steps (chargebacks, small claims, AG complaints) are accurate and current.

Not all sources carry equal weight. We use a tiered system to evaluate the reliability of information:

Tier 1 - Primary Sources (Preferred)

• The retailer's own official return terms - policy page, help center, or in-store signage - documented in our verification log with the source URL and date recorded.
• Published consumer-protection law and official regulatory documentation.
• FTC guidance and state attorney general publications.
• Court decisions and statutes governing returns and refunds.

Tier 2 - Trusted Third-Party Sources

• Named consumer-advocacy organizations we have explicitly vetted and trust (e.g., established nonprofit consumer groups).
• Reputable reporting that cites a primary policy or legal source we can trace back.
• On-the-record statements from retailer representatives, attributed by name and role.

Tier 3 - Contextual Sources (Not Cited as Evidence)

• Forum posts, Reddit threads, and user communities - may be quoted for color or to illustrate a common reader experience, but the underlying factual claim must be independently verified through a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source before publication.
• Customer-service chat or phone answers - useful as a lead worth verifying but not treated as authoritative until confirmed against the store's written terms.
• Other media outlets' roundups - we may reference for context but do not treat another publication's figures as a substitute for our own verification against the store's official terms.

If a claim cannot be supported by a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source, it is either removed from the article or explicitly qualified with language that communicates the uncertainty (e.g., “reports suggest” or “based on user accounts, though we haven't independently verified this”).

Here is the step-by-step process an article goes through:

1. 1Draft submission - the author submits the completed draft along with a source list documenting where each factual claim originated.
2. 2Fact-checker assignment - the senior editor assigns a fact-checker based on the article's subject matter.
3. 3Line-by-line review - the fact-checker reads the article and flags every verifiable claim. Each flag is categorized as confirmed, needs source, needs revision, or remove.
4. 4Source verification- the fact-checker independently checks each flagged claim against the cited source and records whether the source supports the claim as written. Where the source doesn't fully support the claim, the fact-checker proposes revised language.
5. 5Author revision- the author receives the fact-checker's notes and revises the draft accordingly. Disagreements between the author and fact-checker are escalated to the senior editor for resolution.
6. 6Final review - the senior editor reviews the revised draft, confirms all flags have been resolved, and signs off for publication.
7. 7Publication- the article goes live with its byline and, where applicable, the reviewer's name.

The entire process typically takes 2–4 business days after the draft is submitted, depending on the complexity of the article and the volume of claims that require verification.

Not every question has a clear, sourceable answer - especially when a store's written policy is silent on an edge case or applies inconsistently in practice. When we encounter genuine uncertainty, we follow these principles:

• We say what we know and label what we don't. If a policy detail hasn't been verified against the store's official terms, we say so rather than presenting it as confirmed.
• We don't speculate as fact. Predictions, expectations, and educated guesses are clearly framed as such, using language like “we expect,” “early indications suggest,” or “based on last year's policy.”
• We revisit and update. If we publish with a qualified claim, we flag the article for follow-up once better information becomes available.

Fact-checking doesn't end at publication:

• Reader-reported issues submitted through our contact page are routed to the editor-in-chief and reviewed against the same source standards described above.
• Scheduled refreshes (on a regular cadence for retailer hubs, at least yearly for store comparisons) include a full re-verification of windows, fees, receipt rules, and any claims that may have been affected by a store changing its return terms.
• Corrections, when warranted, follow our corrections policy. Every substantive correction is logged publicly.

To be transparent about the boundaries of this process:

• Subjective assessments - when we describe a store's return policy as “generous” or its process as “painless,” those are editorial judgments informed by experience. They reflect how the policy compares, not a figure that can be checked against the store's terms. We don't fact-check opinions, but we do ensure they're grounded in the verified policy.
• Future claims- we don't verify predictions about policy changes a store hasn't announced, future windows, or upcoming holiday extensions beyond attributing them to their source.
• Third-party ad content - advertisements displayed on our site through programmatic ad networks are not subject to our editorial fact-checking process.