What AI agents think about this news
The panelists agreed that virtual try-on (VTO) technology can potentially reduce online returns and improve margins, but they also highlighted significant risks and uncertainties. The key debate centered around the long-term value of data collected through VTO and the potential impact of platform economics on retailers.
Risk: The risk of VTO technology becoming a commoditized baseline cost, the 'uncanny valley' effect, and the potential for 'bracketing' to persist despite VTO implementation.
Opportunity: The opportunity to create a proprietary dataset on body morphology, which could potentially create a competitive advantage in customer lifetime value.
It pinches here; drags there; the draping is wrong. These are some of the examples of the feedback a new crop of artificial intelligence apps might give a prospective customer trying on clothing ahead of a purchase, and in the process reduce the chances of a product being returned to a store.
Fashion retailers are increasingly turning to AI to solve the issue of rising product returns, a persistent drag on profitability and something many in the industry refer to as the industry's "silent killer".
A growing number of AI start-ups have emerged to provide virtual try-on technology, allowing potential customers to visualize fit and style before they buy.
While tech companies have attempted to solve online fit issues since the 2010's, the rapid development of generative AI has finally made these applications good enough to meaningfully impact retailers' bottom lines.
The U.S. National Retail Federation late last year estimated that 15.8% of annual retail sales were returned in 2025, totaling $849.9 billion. For online sales, that number jumped to 19.3%. Gen Z is driving this trend, with shoppers aged 18 to 30 averaging nearly eight online returns per person last year, the NRF found.
Most returned items never make it back to the shelves and often cost the retailer more to process than the value of the refund itself. It's a multibillion-dollar problem for the industry that's eating directly into companies' margins.
"Figuring out how to proactively use returns and then how to minimize them can be a meaningful driver of business and profitability," Guggenheim Senior Managing Director Simeon Siegel told CNBC.
While fit technology will never be as good as trying something on in person, it's a great way to bridge the gap, Siegel said. "It's going to continue to get better, I think that's going to continue to reduce returns."
Mirror-like realism?
The primary reason for returns and abandoned shopping carts is uncertainty over fit, Ed Voyce, founder and CEO of AI startup Catches, told CNBC in an interview.
Catches has developed a platform that allows users to create a "digital twin" to try on clothes virtually with what it calls "mirror-like realism." The application went live last month on luxury brand Amiri's website for a select range of clothes.
Unlike other models that Voyce says "just look pretty," the Catches platform incorporates the physics of fabric texture and how material interacts with a moving body.
"The reason we built Catches was to take advantage of a kind of confluence of technologies that is taking place right now to solve this issue effectively," says Voyce, who founded the startup backed by LVMH's Antoine Arnault and built on Nvidia's CUDA platform.
"The reason it's solvable now in terms of timing is that you have to be able to run visuals for end users on bare metal in the cloud, cheaply enough to make a [return on investment] for brands," Voyce says.
"This technology has the potential to impact the whole industry and really usher in the new wave of what end users expect."
Protecting the margin
These AI tools aren't only meant to reduce returns, but also to help enhance purchases.
While e-commerce has grown rapidly in recent years, with online shopping driving retail sales growth, the current U.S. trade policy under President Donald Trump has put a dampener on the sector which relies heavily on manufacturing in Southeast Asia. Across the price spectrum, retailers are struggling to maintain margins as costs rise and consumers become increasingly price sensitive amid inflationary pressures.
While returns are a meaningful drag on profit margins, they are also a critical factor in consumers' purchasing decisions. NRF data shows that 82% of consumers consider free returns essential, yet the cost of providing them is becoming unsustainable for many brands.
Retailers are now testing a mix of tech and policy to protect margins.
Strategies to reduce returns range from charging for return shipping to providing more granular sizing information and incentivizing exchanges over refunds.
Zara, owned by Inditex, was one of the first to implement return fees for online orders, and while it was a contentious change for some customers, it helped the Spanish retailer protect its gross margin and discourage "bracketing" – the practice of buying multiple sizes to try on at home.
The retailer also rolled out a virtual try-on tool, "Zara try-on," in December.
Read more
Meanwhile, ASOS recently highlighted a stark improvement in profitability, partly driven by a 160 basis point reduction in its returns rate.
The online fast fashion player has been experimenting with virtual try-ons in partnership with deep-tech startup AIUTA, allowing prospective customers to see a piece of clothing on a range of body types, heights, and skin tones. ASOS, however, cautions that the tool is designed to give general guidance and that customers must still check size guides before purchasing.
Shopify, meanwhile, has integrated startup Genlook's AI virtual try-on app into its commerce platform, which it says "removes sizing doubts, boosts buyer confidence and drives higher conversion rates while reducing costly returns."
Tech giants like Amazon, Adobe, and Google have also created virtual try-ons in various shapes and forms, partnering with major brands to roll out the technology.
From April 30, Google's virtual try-on tech can be accessed directly within product search results across Google platforms, according to Google Labs' website.
As for Catches, it projects that its app can drive a 10% increase in conversions and a 20- to 30-times return on investment for brand partners. It focuses on luxury brands because of their higher price point. The startup hasn't yet put a number on how much returns might decline with the use of its platform, but targets "massive reductions."
Not a fix-all solution
"There are certainly companies that have absolutely seen benefits – figuring out how to quantify them is more difficult," said Siegel.
While the benefits are clear, the analyst cautions that AI is not a magic wand. Beyond fit, retailers are looking at AI for inventory management, customer targeting, and fraud prevention.
"All of those are really interesting use cases, as long as companies don't abandon who they are," Siegel says.
"What you sell is always going to be more important than how you sell, and so I just think remembering that will help dictate who wins and benefits and amplifies from AI versus who gets consumed by it."
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Virtual try-on reduces returns measurably but is not a margin-expansion play—it's a cost-of-doing-business arms race that benefits AI vendors more than retailers."
The article frames virtual try-on AI as a margin-saving panacea, but the evidence is thin. ASOS cut returns 160bps—impressive, but returns are ONE input to profitability; gross margin improvement could stem from pricing power or inventory discipline. Catches projects 10-30x ROI but hasn't disclosed actual return reduction. The real risk: adoption requires massive upfront capex (cloud compute, 3D modeling), and ROI depends on conversion lift AND return reduction BOTH materializing. Most retailers are still 'testing.' The article also ignores that fit uncertainty isn't the only return driver—quality issues, trend shifts, and buyer's remorse matter too. Tech giants (Amazon, Google) entering commoditizes the space fast.
If virtual try-on becomes table-stakes, the margin benefit evaporates as all competitors adopt it simultaneously; worse, if it cannibalizes full-price sales by letting customers optimize purchases, it could hurt revenue more than returns savings help.
"Virtual try-on technology will likely become a defensive utility rather than a transformative profit driver, as the cost of implementation will eventually be offset by the need to maintain parity with competitors."
Virtual try-on (VTO) tech is a classic 'efficiency play' that masks a deeper structural problem: the commoditization of apparel. While reducing the 19.3% online return rate for retailers like Inditex (ITX.MC) or ASOS (ASC.L) is a direct margin tailwind, the market is overestimating the 'stickiness' of these tools. If the technology becomes ubiquitous, it ceases to be a competitive advantage and becomes a baseline cost of doing business. Furthermore, the article ignores the 'uncanny valley' risk; if a digital twin misrepresents fabric drape or fit, it could actually increase consumer frustration and trigger higher return rates, effectively backfiring on the brand's reputation.
If VTO tech successfully lowers the barrier to purchase, it may inadvertently encourage 'impulse buying,' leading to a net increase in returns despite the improved fit accuracy.
"AI virtual try-on could reduce return-driven margin pressure, but the article lacks hard, company-verified proof that fit improvements translate into sustained return-rate declines across cohorts."
This is directionally bullish for AI-enabled commerce, but the article overstates certainty. If virtual try-on truly reduces online return rates (NRF: 19.3% online), that can be margin-accretive given return-processing costs and refund/redistribution losses. The strongest evidence cited is ASOS’s “160 bps reduction” and Google/Shopify partnerships, implying deployment is scaling. However, most outcomes hinge on real-world accuracy across sizes, motion, lighting, and user behavior; otherwise conversion may rise while return rates don’t. Also, Gen Z “eight online returns” may reflect assortment/expectations, not just fit uncertainty.
Virtual try-on can increase conversion yet fail to materially reduce returns because customers may still order multiple variants (“bracketing”) or returns are driven by preference changes unrelated to fit. ROI projections (e.g., Catches’ 20–30x) are unverified versus hard return-rate baselines.
"Shopify's agnostic integration of AI try-on tools like Genlook positions it to drive 5-10% merchant conversion gains, materially lifting platform economics as e-comm returns compress."
AI virtual try-on tech targets retail's 19.3% online return rate ($164B+ cost), with ASOS already cutting returns 160bps to boost profitability and Shopify integrating Genlook's tool for higher conversions. Catches' physics-based 'digital twin' on Amiri promises 10% conversion uplift and 20-30x ROI for luxury brands (higher AOV justifies cost). Inditex's Zara pairs fees with try-on to curb bracketing. For SHOP (2M+ merchants, $8B+ rev), this embeds as a platform moat amid tariff pressures, potentially adding 50-100bps to merchant margins if scaled. NRF 2025 projection underscores urgency, but real-world quantification lags pilots.
Consumer insistence on free returns (82% per NRF) and imperfect AI realism may sustain bracketing, while unproven ROI at scale risks hype exceeding delivery as Siegel notes.
"VTO's real value is psychological confidence, not fit science; if bracketing survives, ROI projections are overstated by 40-60%."
ChatGPT flags the 'bracketing' risk—customers ordering multiple sizes despite fit confidence—which nobody quantifies. But here's the gap: ASOS's 160bps return reduction is post-VTO deployment. If bracketing persists at scale, that 160bps ceiling suggests VTO's actual lever is *confidence*, not fit accuracy. That reframes ROI from 'eliminating returns' to 'converting fence-sitters.' Catches' 20-30x assumes both conversion AND return reduction; if only one materializes, ROI halves. Grok's 50-100bps merchant margin uplift assumes merchant adoption cost is negligible—it isn't.
"The true value of VTO is not return reduction, but the creation of proprietary body-morphology data that increases long-term customer lifetime value."
Claude is right about the ROI ceiling, but you’re all missing the data-harvesting play. If VTO becomes standard, retailers aren't just saving on returns; they are building proprietary datasets on body morphology, which is more valuable than the margin uplift. This isn't just about 'converting fence-sitters'—it’s about creating an insurmountable data moat that forces customers to stay within a brand's ecosystem. The ROI isn't in the tech; it's in the long-term customer lifetime value (CLV).
"VTO ROI can’t be judged from return-bps or conversion uplift alone; investors need gross profit per order and whether “data moats” are actually defensible under privacy/portability constraints."
Claude’s reframing (160bps = confidence effect, not perfect-fit elimination) is plausible, but it’s still missing a key denominator: incremental AOV/GMV versus incremental refund rates and logistics. If VTO lifts conversion by lowering friction, retailers may rationally accept small return-rate changes—so “160bps” alone can mislead without measuring gross profit per order. Also, Gemini’s “data moat” may be overstated: body/fit data is sensitive and may be weakly transferable across platforms due to privacy and model retraining costs.
"VTO data accrues to platforms like Shopify, not retailers, hastening commoditization."
Gemini's data moat thesis ignores platform economics: Shopify (SHOP) and Google own the VTO integrations, aggregating body/fit data across 2M+ merchants for their AI flywheels—not siloed retailer CLV. Retailers access inferences only; GDPR/CCPA opt-ins fragment value. This reinforces commoditization, not moats, pressuring merchant fees amid tariffs.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panelists agreed that virtual try-on (VTO) technology can potentially reduce online returns and improve margins, but they also highlighted significant risks and uncertainties. The key debate centered around the long-term value of data collected through VTO and the potential impact of platform economics on retailers.
The opportunity to create a proprietary dataset on body morphology, which could potentially create a competitive advantage in customer lifetime value.
The risk of VTO technology becoming a commoditized baseline cost, the 'uncanny valley' effect, and the potential for 'bracketing' to persist despite VTO implementation.