I think that if I had to return frequently, I'd find a different vendor well before Amazon would decide they don't want me as a customer.
On the rare occasion I want a return, I've assumed that the reason they handle it without any issue is because they can see my lifetime purchase value vs. my return rate.
Maybe they don't care about my stats I guess but whichever way I'm currently happy in that regard.
I do worry that the competition is being wiped out, but I don't believe in boycotts for idealistic antitrust reasons.
There is too little detail in the GP to draw a conclusion, so this comment seems unfair.
IDK why I'm catching an accusation and downvotes by telling people about Amazon customer support protocols that are internal policy but not documented publicly: that they will ban you for returns past some threshold of frequency and price, and they offer refunds for items that arrive damaged even if they first push you to spend your time returning them instead.
I've never been banned and I don't abuse it. What I said is also true, that I don't drive etc.
I don't need to have been banned myself to know how they've operated with others. And seeking refunds for goods that were damaged upon arrival is not abuse. There's no need to give in to their first preference to return an item when it is in fact their policy to process refunds for them too, they just hide it behind customer service protocols instead of exposing it in UI. You don't need to settle for the first suggested remediation from a business's customer service to be ethical, or shaming people for escalating. That's just being a chump.