SAME Los Angeles generates one of the most consistently and seriously negative documented return-and-refund patterns across this entire research series — Sitejabber’s aggregate sits at 1.1 stars from 34 reviews, and the specific, repeated complaint mechanism (returns denied for alleged “wear” or “dirt” on items the customer insists were tried on once, briefly) appears across BBB, Trustpilot, ComplaintsBoard, and Sitejabber with remarkable, almost identical consistency. This deserves to anchor the entire evaluation of this brand.
Best for: Buyers who are fully confident in their exact size before ordering (given the documented difficulty obtaining refunds for any reason), who photograph and video the unboxing and every try-on attempt as documentation, and who are prepared to treat any SAME Los Angeles purchase as genuinely final regardless of the company’s stated return policy.
Cross-referenced from Trustpilot’s 18-review collection, SmartCustomer’s 34-review aggregate (1.1 stars), BBB’s documented complaint and customer review archive, ComplaintsBoard’s detailed account collection, WorthEPenny’s aggregated review analysis, and VogueChronicles’ detailed product-page material and construction breakdown. No commercial relationship with SAME Los Angeles.
SAME Los Angeles is a women-owned luxury swimwear and resort wear brand based in California, known for high-fashion silhouettes, layered suede-style and metallic fabrics, and a positioning specifically aimed at confident, statement-making poolside and beachwear. Products are handmade in Mexico from a polyamide-elastane blend, marketed at premium pricing — typically $100-300+ per piece — and frequently worn by influencers, stylists, and documented celebrity wearers.
This deserves to anchor the entire review because the consistency across independent, unrelated platforms is genuinely remarkable. A detailed BBB complaint describes a customer who “followed the try on policy” precisely — trying the suit on while wearing clean underwear as instructed — and still received a denial: “they could not refund my money as the swimwear was returned dirty.” A separate, similarly specific Trustpilot account: “My wife ordered 2 sizes of the same item… when she tried the first one on, it fit perfectly so she didn’t even try the 2nd. Upon return they accused her of soiling the item and refused the return.” A third, separate SmartCustomer account uses nearly identical language: “SAME Swim unfairly denied my return and falsely claimed the item showed ‘signs of wear,’ despite all sanitary stickers and tags being fully intact.”
The consistency of this exact complaint mechanism — alleged “dirt” or “wear” cited as grounds for denial, even on items the customer insists were tried on once and briefly — across at least five separate, independently operated review platforms (Trustpilot, BBB, SmartCustomer, ComplaintsBoard, Sitejabber) is a meaningfully stronger evidence pattern than any single account, however detailed, could provide alone.
One detailed BBB complaint provides an unusually specific, document-able dispute: the company sent the customer a photo as evidence of the alleged “damage” justifying a return denial, and the customer’s direct response states the photo “clearly shows no signs of wear.” The customer’s own conclusion, stated plainly: “I believe this is a fraudulent claim to avoid issuing a refund.” This level of specificity — a documented photo dispute, rather than a vague “they said it was dirty” complaint — strengthens the credibility of this particular account considerably.
This deserves direct, careful inclusion because it describes something more troubling than a simple return dispute. One detailed account describes initiating a return, being told only store credit or a partial refund was available (contradicting what the customer understood from the website’s stated policy), copying the exact policy language from the site and sending it back to the company, receiving “a pretty condescending” reply claiming the policy “wasn’t theirs,” and then going back to the website specifically to screenshot the policy as proof — only to find “THEY REMOVED THE POLICY” in the interim. The customer’s stated next step: “I’m reporting this to the BBB.” This is a serious, specific allegation of a company actively altering its publicly stated terms mid-dispute, and it deserves to be weighed heavily.
Beyond the return policy issues, there’s a separate, specific documented concern about whether the product received matches what was advertised. One detailed account: “the website said the fabric was ‘faux suede,’ but what I got was a knit crepe.” A separate, harsher assessment from a self-identified fashion designer: “As a fashion designer, I was shocked by the poor sewing and fabric quality.” A third account specifically describes “gold ‘hardware’ they boast about” as “actually made of plastic,” with the reviewer’s skeptical conclusion that it wouldn’t “last even a day in the sun and surf.”
The genuine counter-evidence exists and deserves equal inclusion: separate, specific positive product reviews describe “the colors are incredibly vibrant, really stand out, and look fantastic” and “the material is super soft and really well made… it fits just right” — suggesting that when fit and expectations align correctly, the actual garment quality can satisfy customers. The honest synthesis: product satisfaction appears genuinely variable, but the return process specifically — regardless of whether the initial product satisfies — is the area with the most serious, most consistently documented problems.
This deserves precise, direct explanation because the actual policy terms, even applied exactly as written without any dispute, impose real costs on the customer. One detailed reviewer’s specific breakdown: choosing store credit means “a restocking fee is deducted.” Choosing a refund to the original payment method means “they deduct 12% on top of everything else.” The same reviewer’s accurate, direct summary: “Essentially, no matter which option you choose, you lose money — even when the issue is simply lack of inventory on their end.” This is worth understanding as a baseline cost structure independent of any specific dispute or denial.
A specific, detailed account documents a genuine discrepancy between premium shipping cost and actual delivery: paying $50 specifically for “overnight” shipping, with checkout showing a specific delivery date, only for the actual delivery to arrive a day later than promised — with the reviewer specifically noting the website’s stated 1-3 business day processing window isn’t clearly disclosed as applying even to expedited shipping options. Separately, multiple accounts describe extended periods (one specific account: over a week, with 10+ unanswered emails) without any response to order or return inquiries, with no phone number available as an alternative contact method.
Best for: Buyers who have already confirmed their exact size through a previous purchase, a verified size chart cross-reference, or in-person trying at a physical retail partner if available.
One Honest Drawback: Given the documented, repeated pattern of return denials even on items described as tried on once and briefly, ordering multiple sizes “to compare” specifically carries serious, well-documented financial risk.
Verdict: The single most important purchasing strategy for this brand specifically is sizing certainty before ordering — the brand’s documented return process should not be relied upon as a safety net.
Best for: Buyers specifically drawn to the brand’s signature suede-and-metallic layered aesthetic, who are prepared to accept the documented purchase risk.
One Honest Drawback: At least one specific, documented account describes a discrepancy between the listed “faux suede” material and the actual received “knit crepe” fabric — confirm material composition carefully and document the listing at time of purchase.
Verdict: A genuinely distinctive design, purchased only with full awareness of and acceptance of the documented return risk.
Real accounts paraphrased:
For buyers with full confidence in their exact size and a complete willingness to accept the documented, repeated risk of return denial regardless of how carefully a try-on is conducted: a calculated risk, given the genuine design distinctiveness some customers do confirm being satisfied with.
For any buyer hoping to use the stated return policy as a meaningful safety net: reconsider directly — the volume, consistency, and specificity of documented return-denial complaints across at least five separate, independent platforms represents one of the most serious, well-corroborated patterns identified anywhere in this broader research series.
samelosangeles.com — direct, no third-party retail distribution confirmed. Photograph and video your unboxing and any try-on attempt thoroughly as documentation, and pay via a method offering strong purchase dispute protection given the documented pattern of return denials.
The stated policy technically allows returns within 14 days for unworn items, but multiple separate, documented, independent accounts describe returns being denied based on alleged “wear” or “dirt” even on items reportedly tried on once, briefly, with tags and hygiene liners intact.
It is a real, operating business, but the documented pattern of return denials, a specific account of the company allegedly altering its stated policy mid-dispute, and the consistency of complaints across multiple independent platforms represent serious, legitimate concerns worth weighing heavily.
Per the brand’s own structure described by multiple reviewers: a 12% deduction for refunds to original payment, separate restocking fees for store credit, plus additional shipping charges — genuine costs regardless of the outcome.
Not consistently — at least one specific, detailed account documents ordering an item listed as “faux suede” and receiving a different “knit crepe” material instead.
SAME Los Angeles offers a genuinely distinctive design aesthetic that some customers confirm being satisfied with when fit and material expectations align. The documented return and refund process, however, represents one of the most seriously and consistently corroborated problem patterns across this entire research series — appearing with remarkable specificity and consistency across at least five separate, independently operated review platforms.
Buy only with full sizing certainty, document everything thoroughly, and treat any purchase as functionally final regardless of the brand’s stated return policy, given the weight of available evidence.
Category | Score |
Design Distinctiveness | 8 / 10 |
Material/Description Accuracy | 4.5 / 10 |
Return Policy (as stated) | 5 / 10 |
Return Policy (as practiced) | 1.5 / 10 |
Customer Service Responsiveness | 2.5 / 10 |
Value for Money | 4 / 10 |
Overall | 4.2 / 10 |