Retail deductions are built to be paid by default.
Each one is small. They arrive inside a remittance rather than as an invoice. And contesting a single charge means pulling the ASN, the routing guide and the proof of delivery from three different places — which costs more attention than the deduction is worth, one at a time. That asymmetry is the product, not an accident.
One quarter of remittances, sorted into contestable and not. 25% of what comes back, or $1,500 fixed — $750 for the first three.
Two lines by email · no obligation · answered by the person who would do the work
Two things are true at once
of deductions are invalid but go unchallenged, according to published supplier figures
win rate on disputes filed in the first week — falling under 5% once a charge is past 90 days
of gross revenue lost to deductions by a typical supplier selling through major retailers
The money isn't lost because the case is weak. It's lost because nobody got to it in time. The evidence doesn't change between week one and month four — only the window does. That's the one genuine deadline in anything we sell, and it's theirs, not ours.
These are industry figures from published supplier and deduction-management sources, not our measurements. Your retailers' windows are in your vendor agreements — worth reading before anyone tells you a number.
The codes worth pulling first
Because they are the ones most often wrong:
- Late delivery where the carrier's POD shows on time — the clock was started at the wrong event
- ASN errors where the ASN was sent and accepted, and the mismatch is in their receiving
- Carton or label compliance charged per unit where the routing guide says per carton
- Shortages that match your bill of lading exactly — received and misplaced on their side
- The same purchase order deducted twice across two remittances
Every one of those is arguable with documents you already hold. None of them requires a lawyer, a consultant relationship, or a conversation with your buyer.
Why it stays unchallenged
"Our broker handles it." Brokers chase the large ones, because that's where their economics are. The bulk of the money sits in small repeated codes nobody wants to file one at a time.
"We don't have time." Correct, and that's exactly why the number is what it is. The process is designed to cost more attention than any single deduction is worth. In a batch it inverts: the same documents, forty cases at once, one afternoon.
"Finance reviews the remittance." Finance reviews the net. The deduction codes rarely reach the person who could contest them — and the codes are the whole case.
A quarter, sorted into contestable and not
The "no case" half matters as much as the contestable half: it stops the same lines being re-investigated every quarter, and it tells you which compliance failures are real and worth fixing upstream.
See which deductions you can still win, and which are already gone
Sample triage file — retail deductionsCSV↓There is no browser tool for this one, because it needs documents rather than two clean exports. What there is: the deliverable itself, so you can see how a quarter of deductions looks once it is sorted into contestable, expired and valid — with the evidence named against each line.
What you already hold
The remittances with deduction codes for the period, your ASN records, the routing guide or vendor agreement, and PODs where you have them. For EDI setups this is usually a handful of exports; for smaller suppliers it's sometimes portal screenshots, which is fine.
No access to the retailer portal is required — we work from your side of the paperwork. If you want us to file, you can grant portal access separately; most clients prefer to file themselves with our file in hand.
A share of what comes back
- One quarter of deduction lines, coded and sorted
- Evidence pack per contestable line
- Deadline flagged per retailer window
- Fixed-fee option instead: $1,500 per quarter
Monthly triage as remittances arrive — while the win rate is still high — is $700 per month. Full pricing →
The ones that come up
Will contesting deductions hurt our standing with the retailer?
Disputing with documentation is a routine part of vendor operations; the process exists because they expect it to be used. What damages standing is repeated real compliance failure — which is the other half of what this exercise surfaces, and worth fixing.
We already use a deduction management platform.
Then you have the data in good shape and this is faster. Platforms are good at tracking and workflow; the bottleneck is usually somebody assembling the evidence for each code and deciding what's worth filing. That's the part we do.
How far back can we go?
Depends on the retailer. Windows are typically measured in weeks to a few months from the deduction date, and win rates collapse at the far end. We start with the most recent quarter for exactly that reason, and flag anything close to a deadline first.
Do you file the disputes for us?
We prepare them, including the evidence pack and the wording. Filing usually stays with your team because it runs through your portal accounts and your buyer relationships. If you want us to file, that's a separate arrangement and a separate conversation about access.
The neighbouring seams
Two lines by email. No form, no calendar link.
Which two systems, roughly what size, what you have already tried. You get a straight answer the same working day — including “this is not something we would help with”, when that is the honest one.
Two lines by email · no obligation · answered by the person who would do the work