In a surreal twist of modern e-commerce gone awry, a San Jose Woman Receives Hundreds of Car Seat Covers from Amazon Throughout the Year as Chinese Seller Incorrectly Lists Her Address as Return Center. What began as an odd delivery turned into a yearlong avalanche of parcels that cluttered her home, upended her daily routine, and exposed some troubling loopholes in Amazon’s marketplace policies.
At the core of the issue was a Chinese online seller, Liusandedian, who inexplicably listed the woman’s home address as the official return center for unwanted merchandise.
The case, which gained attention after an ABC 7 News investigation, not only underscores the dark side of online shopping but also highlights the challenges consumers face when navigating massive retail ecosystems like Amazon. It raises serious questions about seller accountability, consumer protection, and the vulnerabilities in global e-commerce networks.
Woman Receives Hundreds of Car Seat Covers From Amazon
It all started quietly. A single package arrived at the woman’s home in San Jose—an unremarkable box containing a set of faux-leather car seat covers. The woman had not ordered the item, and her initial assumption was that it was simply a delivery mistake.
But over the weeks, more packages arrived. Dozens, then hundreds, of nearly identical boxes piled up outside her house. These were not ordinary misdelivered orders—they were all addressed to her, bearing her name and location, but she had nothing to do with their origin.
As the deliveries continued, the mystery deepened. The packages came from customers across the United States who had purchased the seat covers online, discovered they didn’t fit their vehicles properly, and attempted to return them. However, when faced with exorbitant international shipping fees to send the items back to China, they discovered an alternate return address—one that pointed directly to the woman’s home.
Read : “Drink Urine to Pass Kidney Stone More Quickly”: A Quirky Glitch in Google’s AI Advice
What was initially an amusing oddity quickly turned into a logistical and emotional burden. The woman, whose identity remains confidential, reported the incident to Amazon multiple times. Her pleas were met with standard customer service replies, advising her to either donate or discard the packages. But as the mountain of seat covers grew taller, so did her frustration and sense of helplessness.
Unraveling the Seller’s Scheme
The real culprit in this bizarre situation was not Amazon directly, but a third-party Chinese seller operating on its platform. Known as Liusandedian, the vendor sold budget faux-leather car seat covers, likely banking on bulk sales to American consumers.
When returns started pouring in due to size or quality issues, the company chose an unorthodox—and highly unethical—route to avoid international return costs: it listed the woman’s address as their U.S.-based return center. This tactic, while seemingly absurd, exploits a grey area in Amazon’s third-party seller policies. Amazon allows international vendors to sell on its platform under the condition that they provide a reliable return solution for U.S. customers.
Read : The Bizarre Tale of the Cross-Dressing ‘Red Uncle’ Goes Viral in China
In many cases, that means maintaining a legitimate U.S. return address or refunding the buyer without requesting a return. But Liusandedian found a shortcut that bypassed both requirements—by designating an innocent third party as the return destination.
Unbeknownst to the woman, her address was circulated to hundreds of frustrated buyers who wanted to return their purchases. Many of them, unwilling to pay return shipping fees to China or unaware of Amazon’s policy violations, simply sent the items to the address listed by the seller. The result: a steady stream of unwanted parcels that the woman had no power to stop.
This case sheds light on a critical issue within global e-commerce—namely, how easily a seller can manipulate return logistics at the expense of unsuspecting individuals. It also illustrates how Amazon’s sheer size and reliance on algorithmic processes can delay human intervention, especially in cases that fall outside typical customer service scenarios.
Resolution and Accountability: Amazon Steps In
After months of inaction and inadequate responses, the woman finally got the attention she needed—thanks to investigative reporting by ABC 7 News. The news outlet took up her story, bringing public scrutiny to Amazon’s handling of the bizarre incident. Once the story aired, Amazon moved quickly to resolve the issue.
In a public statement, Amazon apologized to the woman and acknowledged the severity of her ordeal. Representatives from the company arrived at her home to collect the accumulated packages—reportedly numbering in the hundreds—and pledged to investigate the seller’s practices. The e-commerce giant also promised to review how such situations could be prevented in the future.
Amazon’s response, though eventually effective, came only after media coverage forced their hand. This raises important concerns about the adequacy of customer support systems for dealing with unique or complicated problems. For over a year, the woman endured the consequences of a third-party seller’s deceit without any meaningful intervention from the platform responsible for facilitating the transactions.
While Amazon has since removed the seller from its marketplace and taken action to clear the woman’s property of the unwanted packages, questions remain about the broader implications of the incident. How many other individuals might find themselves in similar situations without the benefit of a media spotlight? How rigorously does Amazon vet the return logistics of its international sellers? And what policies are in place to prevent addresses from being misused in such a manner?
This case could mark a turning point in how platforms like Amazon monitor and enforce return policies among international vendors. It also serves as a cautionary tale for consumers and sellers alike: trust in the global e-commerce system is built on transparency and accountability, and when those values are compromised, the consequences can be deeply disruptive.
At its heart, this is more than just a story about a house overflowing with car seat covers—it’s a sobering reminder of how even the most sophisticated retail ecosystems can fail to protect individuals from exploitation. The woman in San Jose didn’t sign up to be a return center. She didn’t order car seat covers. She didn’t even own a car that required them. Yet for over a year, her life was shaped by an invisible thread of global commerce gone rogue.
In a world increasingly dependent on online retail, ensuring that buyers, sellers, and even non-participants are treated fairly is no longer optional—it’s essential.