When Mike Winnet accepted a £70 offer for an unsued Lacoste hoodie and shorts set on the resale app Vinted, he thought it was another ordinary sale. Little did he know that he was about to become a victim of a new AI scam.
The buyer claimed that the item was damaged, submitting a single close-up photo of what looked like a hole in the fabric. The problem, Winnet said, was that the image wasn’t of his clothes at all.
“It looks AI-generated, and my item was in perfect condition,” he said. “The material looked off and the photo looked fake. But Vinted refunded the buyer instantly, without asking for more proof, and they didn’t make him return the goods.”
The buyer promptly blocked Winnet and deleted his account. “Now he has a brand new Lacoste co-ord and his money back,” he said. “It’s theft — and Vinted’s processes are allowing it to happen.”
Winnet, 41, who runs a marketing business, was out of pocket despite nearly a month of back-and-forth with Vinted. After The Times contacted the company for comment, Vinted refunded him.
Winnet posted his experience on LinkedIn this month and had nearly 700 comments from others sharing similar experiences.
How does the scam work?
The fraud hinges on creating fake images of flaws on clothing — tears, stains, holes — which are convincing enough to pass Vinted’s buyer-protection checks. Sellers have said the platform often sides with buyers, refunding them on the strength of a single photo while letting them keep the goods.
The images used are often close-up photos, making it hard to tell if they are of the correct item
ALAMY
“It’s worse now than it’s ever been,” said Winnet, who has sold about 50 to 60 higher-end items on the app over the past two years.
Martyn James, a consumer campaigner, said: “Well over half the complaints I hear about Vinted come from sellers who feel that some unscrupulous customers and fraudsters are gaming the system to get refunds.
“Refunds should not be given unless items are returned. Sellers should always be given a chance to prove that the item was as described — which is so easy to do, because there will be photos from before the sale.”
• I warned Amazon about a scammer — then it sent them my £10,000
Scammers on Airbnb too
The problem is not limited to fashion resale. In August The Guardian reported that a London-based academic was accused by an Airbnb host in New York of causing more than £12,000 worth of damage, including allegedly cracking a coffee table, staining a mattress and breaking appliances.
The host supplied photographs that the guest said had been digitally manipulated, pointing to inconsistencies between images of the same table. Despite her appeals and testimony from someone who had been with her at checkout, Airbnb initially ruled against the guest and ordered her to pay the host £5,314.
After she challenged the decision, and five days after The Guardian contacted Airbnb, the lettings platform credited her account with £500, later offered her £854, and finally refunded her the full cost of her booking — almost £4,300 — while also removing the negative review that the host had left on her profile.
• NatWest let fake hotel take £1.7k even though I declined the payment
Airbnb apologised and said it had launched a review of how the case was handled. The company said: “We take damage claims seriously — our specialist team reviews all available evidence to reach proportionate outcomes for both parties, and to help ensure a fair approach, decisions can be appealed.”
James said that scams were becoming systemic across the sharing economy. “Fraud is everywhere at the moment and online platforms are particularly vulnerable. We’re hearing from Trading Standards that this is also peak season for fake rental listings targeting students,” he said.
“Platforms are obliged to run proper dispute resolution schemes and consider evidence from both sides — but too often, the safeguards simply aren’t there.”
Why sellers are vulnerable
The appeal of resale platforms lies in their speed and convenience. But those same features can leave sellers exposed. Unlike eBay, where refunds usually require goods to be returned, Vinted’s process allows a claim to be closed without the seller getting their item back.
“This is really unfair and potentially breaching the law,” James said. “The rules are clear: if goods are genuinely damaged, buyers should return them. They shouldn’t get to keep them.”
For casual sellers shifting unwanted clothes, losing £70 can sting. For others, the losses run into thousands. In responses to Winnet’s post, sellers reported losing designer goods, luxury handbags and trainers worth several hundred pounds at a time.
• How not to get scammed — a guide for idiots (that’s all of us)
What needs to change
James said: “Platforms tell me they ban buyers who exploit the system, but identifying them is not easy because they can just set up multiple accounts. That’s why ID checks and proper verification are so important.”
Winnet said he wished there were tougher requirements, such as the need to upload a passport or driving licence to prove identity and video evidence of damage rather than single photos.
Vinted said: “We have a range of tools to monitor suspicious behaviour, whether or not it involves AI. Fraudulent activity is strictly prohibited on Vinted and we will take action against it, which may include listing removal or account suspension. We are also closely monitoring the evolving use of AI among our members to ensure it remains consistent with the platform’s usage guidelines.”
Airbnb said: “The guest had not been charged, and their appeal was being reviewed. Following this review, we contacted the guest to explain they would not need to pay for the damages and we have refunded the guest for their stay.
“We invest in teams and technology to help protect users from fraudulent reimbursement requests. This includes continuously developing its technology and creating a specialist team that thoroughly reviews and investigates claims to uphold the integrity of the platform.”