Does Lipomax require proof of purchase or unopened product for a full refund?

1. The promise: advertised “money‑back” windows that sound unconditional

Marketing cited by consumers and complaint records repeatedly referenced a 60‑ or 90‑day “100% money‑back guarantee” or “no questions asked” language, giving customers the reasonable expectation of a full refund within that window ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. The practice: customers report being asked for receipts, RMA forms and tracking

Multiple consumer reports collected by the BBB and consumer‑help forums say refunds were conditioned on following exact return instructions, including filling out a refund form, obtaining an RMA#, providing copies of receipts, and supplying return tracking—steps that functionally require proof of purchase to move a refund forward ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

3. Condition of product: “unopened” or resalable requirement appears repeatedly

Independent advisers and return‑instruction posts indicate returns were typically required to be unopened or in resalable condition and that failing to meet those standards risked refund denial; some complainants said they returned bottles (used and unused) yet still faced rejection or delays ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Operational breakdowns: unresponsive contacts and delayed refunds

Beyond documentation and condition requirements, the record shows customers struggled to reach working phone numbers and email addresses, experienced long delays even when USPS tracking showed returned packages, and reported refunds not issued within promised timelines—factors that compound disputes even when proof of purchase and proper packaging exist ^{[5] [4] [2]}.

5. How these requirements interact: implied vs. explicit policy

Some sources describe the unconditional refund language as explicit advertising, while others—and several consumers—report the seller applied explicit administrative conditions (RMA, receipt, unopened status) to honor refunds; that tension means the advertised “no‑questions‑asked” guarantee did not reliably translate into frictionless refunds in practice ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. Consumer remedies and red flags noted by advisers

Advisers and consumer advocates in the reporting recommended keeping shipment tracking, copies of all communications, and proof of return delivery, and suggested disputing charges with the card issuer or filing complaints with consumer protection agencies if refunds are withheld—steps underscoring that proof of purchase/return is central to recouping money when the vendor’s process is contested ^{[5] [7]}.

7. Alternative perspectives and possible agendas

The seller’s marketing language—if it did promise unconditional refunds—benefited customer acquisition, while operational requirements and poor responsiveness benefited the seller by making refunds harder to obtain; some complaint posts accuse the product of being part of deceptive campaigns, which introduces potential hidden agendas from third parties attempting to distance legitimate manufacturers (e.g., FirstFitness denying association) or from affiliates and payment processors like Cartpanda that complicate disputes ^{[8] [4] [3]}.

8. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

On balance, evidence shows Lipomax refunds were frequently contingent on documentation (receipts, tracking, sometimes an RMA) and on returning product in resalable or unopened condition—even where advertising suggested a broad money‑back guarantee—so a customer seeking a full refund should treat proof of purchase and return condition as effectively required ^{[1] [3] [6] [2]}. Reporting does not provide a single company‑issued return policy document to reconcile every complaint, so this assessment relies on consumer complaints, help‑forum guidance, and BBB filings rather than an official, consistently enforceable policy text ^{[3] [2] [5]}.