Marketplace return-policy extraction: three real-world cases (eBay, Walmart, Target Plus)

[mangelmartinezfer-hue]

Marketplace return-policy extraction: three observed item-level cases
Evidence collected on 15 October 2026.
Purpose. Following Amit Handa's request on UCP PR #634, these observations document information extraction tooling should preserve before a business declares applicable return terms. They are observations of storefront presentations, not authoritative UCP declarations or purchase outcomes, or a proposal to change the UCP schema.
Evidence qualification. The current package includes original-language eBay screenshots for the US and Spain views, and the original Spanish Walmart seller modal with URL/seller context captured separately. Some earlier translated screenshots are retained as historical supplementary evidence only. The accompanying source_extracts_2026-10-15.txt is a partial DOM excerpt collected with browser automation, not a full HTML capture; it also covers unrelated first-party listings. The EVIDENCE_MANIFEST.md records each image, source, observed locale/translation and approximate capture time. Exact independent UTC timestamps per screenshot are not available and are not asserted.

1. eBay: divergent return-policy presentations for one listing

• Listing: New Bello Bath Towel, item 167910774443; seller shown as China Crystal Silver and more.
• Spain delivery view, postal code 46190: the original-English return modal states “With eBay International Shipping, returns accepted within 30 days” and “Buyer pays return shipping.” The same modal separately notes that the eBay Money Back Guarantee may cover an item that is not as described. The 30-day return term is explicitly presented in the context of eBay International Shipping, but this alone does not establish why the US view differs. Screenshot shows Spain selected, but the URL is outside the cropped modal; pair with the listing URL/seller identification screenshot.
• United States delivery view, ZIP code 10001: the original-English listing states “Seller does not accept returns.” The same screenshot includes the listing URL and shipping destination 10001.
• Evidence: See the three original-language eBay screenshots attached below, showing the listing, the US return terms, and the Spain delivery view.
• Extraction implication: changing the delivery destination in the observed views (country and postal code) coincided with different displayed return terms. The shipping method and browsing context also differed; the underlying cause has not been established. Do not combine both observations into a universal listing policy.
• Limitation: the Spanish delivery modal is cropped, so its provenance is paired with the same listing URL and seller in the other screenshots; screenshots do not independently establish the mechanism behind the differing views. Seller return terms and buyer protection must be kept separate; eBay Money Back Guarantee describes remedies even where the seller offers no returns. No overall NO verdict is asserted.

2. Walmart Marketplace: an expired date in a seller-specific modal

• Listing: Lycia Turkish Cotton Waffle Bath Towel, item 308124646; page identifies EastNBlue as seller and shipper, Sacramento delivery ZIP 95829.
• Seller modal observed on 15 October 2026: an original Spanish-language Walmart page states “El plazo de devolución del artículo se extendió por las fiestas y es elegible para devolución hasta el 31 de enero de 2024” (English translation: “The item's return period was extended for the holidays, and it is eligible for return until 31 January 2024”). The screenshot is not a translation.
• Additional discrepancy: the listing also shows an “Devoluciones por las fiestas extendida” label in the original Spanish presentation, while the seller modal dates the holiday eligibility to 2024. Earlier browser-automation notes report an item-level 30-day return-window field and a holiday badge lacking the year; the underlying item-specific JSON extract is not included in this package, so the numeric field should not be treated here as independently verified. These observations do not establish a usable deadline for a new purchase.
• Platform rule: Walmart Marketplace Seller-fulfilled returns policy, marked updated 31 August 2026. A browser-automation excerpt collected earlier describes a minimum 30-day window beginning seven days after shipment, with exceptions and an option for sellers to offer longer windows. This is a platform rule, not confirmation of this item's effective return period.
• • Evidence: See the original Spanish Walmart screenshots attached below. The platform policy is linked above. Earlier browser extracts are retained separately.
• Extraction implication: the effective return deadline for a prospective new purchase remains UNKNOWN / not established by these conflicting presentations. Do not silently substitute 2027 for 2024, or treat a marketplace-wide minimum as a verified seller-specific guarantee.
• Limitation: the original-language modal has now been captured. The accompanying automated 30-day item-data field still lacks its own attached extract; a past-dated label alone does not prove why the presentation is stale.

3. Target Plus: item-level terms identify a third-party seller

• Listing: American Soft Linen four-piece towel set, Dark Gray variant, TCIN 89797086.
• Seller identification: the page states “Item ships from third party seller: American Soft Linen”; its product details identify information provided by a Target Plus Partner.
• Return terms displayed at item level: “This item can be returned to any Target store or Target.com. This item must be returned within 30 days of the date it was purchased in store, delivered to the guest, delivered by a Shipt shopper, or picked up by the guest.”
• • Evidence: See the Target Plus screenshots attached below, showing the third-party seller and the 30-day return terms.
• Extraction implication: a 30-day duration is stated, but calculating a deadline requires the appropriate order event. The page does not establish a specific future purchaser's delivery date. It does not prove all Target Plus products have the same terms.
  Practical mapping to UCP PR feat: add return policy extension (dev.ucp.shopping.policy.return) #634
• eBay: keep seller-declared return restrictions distinct from the platform's buyer-protection program; do not guess which presentation universally governs.
• Walmart: the case illustrates why conflicting or stale date evidence must not be promoted into a precise current window/deadline. Under the PR's omitted-window clarification, omission means not stated, not unlimited. This is guidance for extraction, not an authoritative merchant policy declaration.
• Target Plus: the source identifies multiple possible start events (in-store purchase, guest delivery, Shipt delivery or pickup). The business must resolve the applicable anchor; computing a deadline then requires the actual event date. No purchase has been made here.
  Shared extraction guidance

1. Preserve item URL and identifier, seller, delivery country and ZIP/postal code, capture timestamp, original language, translation state, condition and return reason where known.
2. Keep merchant/seller terms, marketplace defaults, and buyer-protection remedies separate.
3. Never infer an effective deadline from a past-date banner, a marketplace-wide minimum, or an unstated purchase/delivery event.
4. Label historical screenshots and browser-extracted excerpts as such; do not claim a conclusion is authoritative for future transactions.
   Scope: browser observations made from Spain on 15 October 2026. No purchases, payments, or changes to storefronts. Original-language captures are included. Approximate observation times are listed in EVIDENCE_MANIFEST.md; exact authenticated UTC capture times are unavailable, and this is disclosed in the manifest.

[mangelmartinezfer-hue]

Hi @amithanda,

First of all, congratulations on the merge of PR #634!

I wanted to follow up on the marketplace cases you encouraged us to document. We published three real-world cases covering eBay, Walmart Marketplace and Target Plus here:

#961

Have you had a chance to review them? We'd really appreciate your opinion on whether they could be useful for future UCP implementer or policy-extraction guidance.

We've also completed two additional pieces of work at ReturnCheck:

1. A technical comparison between the approved UCP return-policy extension and ReturnCheck's current capabilities, including compatibility gaps.
2. A developer demonstration of our four verdicts, using recorded IKEA production evidence and clearly identified synthetic test cases.

We're not claiming native UCP compatibility or certification. We'd like to understand where our work could contribute useful examples, evidence or tooling to the ecosystem.

Would you be interested in reviewing a short summary of these findings?

Thanks again for your earlier guidance.

Best regards,
Miguel Ángel
ReturnCheck