Wardrobing: When a Creator Buys, Films and Returns a Product for Content

What is "wardrobing" when a creator does it?

Wardrobing is a common retail-industry term for a specific pattern: a consumer buys an item, uses it once — typically for a specific purpose or occasion — and then returns it for a full refund. Applied to a creator, it typically looks like this: the creator buys a product with their own money, films a "keep or return?" haul or a try-on segment with it, then sends it back to the retailer within the withdrawal period. The point of the content is often exactly the question "do I keep it, or send it back?" — but in practice, the decision to return is often already made before filming even starts.

It's important to keep this scenario separate from two other, already-covered situations in the Academy. It isn't the same as receiving and keeping a gifted product from a brand, covered in can an influencer resell a gifted product? — that's a gift, not a purchase, and there's no refund relationship with a retailer at all. And it isn't the same as the return-rate problem covered in why a high return rate can make an influencer deal unprofitable — that article is about a brand's paid partnership, where end customers return products they bought through a creator's code or link. Wardrobing is about the creator's own, private, unpaid action: the creator is the consumer who uses and returns their own purchase.

Why this is a different legal framework from a warranty complaint

The other easy mix-up is the statutory conformity right (reklamationsret) — the mandatory, 2-year right to complain about defects, covered in detail in when a creator's teardown or modification video voids the product's warranty. The conformity right is about a product that's defective or faulty. Wardrobing is about a product that's completely fault-free — the creator returns it because they no longer want it, not because it's broken. The relevant right here is therefore a third, distinct one: the right of withdrawal (fortrydelsesret) on a distance sale, i.e. the 14-day right to cancel a purchase made online or away from a fixed retail premises.

The right of withdrawal: how much can you actually use the product before returning it?

The right of withdrawal gives consumers 14 days to cancel a distance purchase — but the right to cancel isn't the same as a right to use the product freely during those 14 days. Under forbrugeraftaleloven § 24(5) (the Danish Consumer Contracts Act), a consumer is liable for any value depreciation if the goods are handled in a way that goes beyond "what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods." Denmark's Consumer Ombudsman's own memo on value depreciation in online retail states the standard concretely: a consumer may generally "handle the goods the same way the consumer would have been able to in a physical shop" — the handling you'd have access to in a brick-and-mortar store, not more.

For clothing, the standard is even more specific. The memo cites the European Commission's own guidance that "the consumer should, for example, only try on a garment and should not be allowed to wear it for an extended period" — the same standard that applies in a fitting room. Putting a dress on in front of a mirror for 30 seconds is within the standard. Wearing it to a party, an outdoor photoshoot, or a full day of filming is not — regardless of whether the item still looks completely unused afterwards.

The consequence: a value deduction, not a fine or a fraud charge

It's worth being precise about what actually happens if handling exceeds the standard. It isn't a fine, and the right of withdrawal itself doesn't disappear — instead, the retailer can deduct a value-depreciation amount from the refund the consumer would otherwise be owed in full. Per the Consumer Ombudsman's own memo, it's the retailer that generally has to document that depreciation occurred, and set the amount based on an objective assessment of the item's market price in the condition it's returned in. If the item can still be resold as new without any loss in value, even though it was handled beyond what's permitted, the memo states there's no basis for a deduction — it's the actual depreciation that decides the amount, not the handling itself.

That's an important nuance next to how wardrobing is often framed in US and UK retail press — as a form of "return fraud." That framing doesn't exist in the Danish model: the right of withdrawal is a statutory consumer right, and misusing it is handled through a civil-law value-depreciation deduction, not as a criminal matter against the individual consumer.

How common is wardrobing? What's actually documented

US and UK retail-industry press regularly cites figures for how widespread wardrobing is — for example, that up to 43% of consumers aged 16-25 reportedly plan to keep doing it, or that roughly a quarter of surveyed consumers admit to having done it. Those figures come from industry blogs and marketing reports whose methodology isn't published, and they aren't Denmark-specific or creator-specific — there's no documented, independent study of how widespread the practice is among Danish creators specifically, so they should be read as a general, unverified industry indication, not an established fact. What is solidly documented is the underlying mechanism itself: a meaningful share of total e-commerce returns — estimated by multiple sources at $890 billion in lost 2024 revenue for US retailers, per a Forbes figure — comes from goods that were genuinely used before being returned, regardless of whether the user was an ordinary customer or a creator making content.

Does a "keep or return?" haul need to be disclosed as an ad?

As a general rule, no, if the video shows only the creator's own purchase with no commercial connection to the brand or retailer. The ordinary disclosure rules, covered in influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU, are triggered by a commercial connection — payment, a gift, an affiliate link, or similar — not by simply talking about a product you bought yourself. That changes if the video contains an affiliate link or a discount code for the same retailer, or if the retailer paid for or otherwise collaborated on the video — in that case, the ordinary disclosure rules apply regardless of whether the product ultimately gets returned.

Checklist before filming a "keep or return" haul

• Check the retailer's own return window and conditions. Many Danish retailers offer a longer window than the mandatory 14 days, but on their own, voluntary terms — check them specifically rather than assuming 14 days is the only limit.
• Stick to trial, not use. Try the item the way you would in a fitting room — avoid wearing it to an event, a full day of filming, or any use beyond the trial itself.
• Keep packaging and tags intact. Most retailers' own voluntary return terms require tags to remain attached and packaging undamaged, even when that isn't a legal requirement of the withdrawal right itself.
• Be aware of whether the video needs disclosure. An affiliate link, a discount code, or a paid collaboration with the retailer triggers disclosure regardless of whether the product ends up being returned.
• Don't treat the return as income. An ordinary return to the original retailer for a full refund isn't a sale and doesn't trigger tax — unlike a resale to a third party, covered in can an influencer resell a gifted product?.

Worked example (hypothetical)

The figures below are made up for illustration only — not a real customer case or a documented incident.

A creator buys a dress online for DKK 799 for a "keep or return?" video. She puts the dress on in front of a mirror at home for the opening part of the shoot (within the standard), then wears it to a party that same evening to film more content in context (beyond the standard). She returns the dress four days later. The retailer assesses that the dress shows visible signs of use beyond ordinary trial — for example faint odor or visible creasing — and sets, purely hypothetically, a 30% value-depreciation deduction based on what the dress can actually be resold for in that condition. She receives DKK 559 back instead of the full DKK 799. Had she only tried the dress on in front of a mirror and not worn it out, she would typically have been entitled to a full refund under the standard above.

Common mistakes

• Assuming the right of withdrawal disappears entirely if the item is used too much. It doesn't — the consequence is typically a value-depreciation deduction, not a full denial of the right to cancel the purchase.
• Confusing wardrobing with a warranty complaint. The conformity right is about a defective product; wardrobing is about a fault-free product the creator no longer wants to keep.
• Confusing it with a resale or a gift. An ordinary return to the original retailer is neither a resale nor a gift transfer — see the other two articles for the situations those terms actually apply to.
• Assuming US "return fraud" figures and framing apply directly in Denmark. The Danish model is civil (a value-depreciation deduction), not a fraud case against the consumer.
• Forgetting disclosure if the video contains an affiliate link or code. The purchase itself can be private, but a link or code to the retailer makes the video commercial.

Make Influence's operational perspective

In Make Influence's experience, the "keep or return?" format is itself an effective and legitimate content format — the problem rarely lies in the concept, but in the product being used for filming beyond what an ordinary trial would involve. Our recommendation for creators working with the format is to treat it like any other in-shop trial: brief, careful, and without use beyond what's actually needed to show the product off. That's both the legally safer line and the one that preserves a good relationship with the retailers a creator wants to keep buying from.

FAQ

Is wardrobing illegal in Denmark?

No. Using the right of withdrawal to return an item tried within the lawful standard is an ordinary consumer right. If handling exceeds the standard, the consequence is a value-depreciation deduction — not a criminal matter.

Who has to prove the item lost value?

The retailer. Per the Consumer Ombudsman's own memo, it's generally the retailer that has to document the depreciation and set it based on an objective assessment of the item's market price in the condition it's returned in.

Does the 14-day window apply no matter how long a return period the retailer advertises?

The 14 days is the mandatory minimum for the statutory right of withdrawal. Many retailers offer a longer window on their own voluntary terms — those terms can be stricter on packaging and tags, even where the statutory right of withdrawal itself doesn't require it.

Is this the same as returning a gifted product from a brand?

No. A gifted product isn't purchased, and there's no refund relationship with a retailer — see can an influencer resell a gifted product? for that situation.

Do I need to disclose a "keep or return?" video as an ad?

Only if there's a commercial connection — for example an affiliate link, a discount code, or a paid collaboration with the retailer. See influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU for the full walkthrough.

Does an ordinary return trigger tax?

No. A return to the original retailer for a full refund isn't a sale and doesn't generate taxable income — unlike a resale to a third party.