The Supreme People's Court speaks out! Online shopping, ordering takeaway encounter these regulations, you can say "no"

"Confirmation is required before signing, once confirmed, the product quality is recognized, no return and no replacement", "the product is not returned after unpacking", "The gift does not provide after-sales service"... Are you familiar with these terms? It is not uncommon in the interpretation of online stores, express delivery orders, and even e-commerce customer service. Some are still standard terms with black and white characters, and consumers feel that they are unfair, but they cannot find a reason to refute them.

However, from March 2, these online shopping clauses suspected of infringing on consumers' rights and interests have been explicitly suspended, and consumers can say "no" with a straight face - the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Online Consumer Dispute Cases (I)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions") issued on March 2 this year, before march 15 this year, to support consumers' online shopping, ordering takeaway, etc., and stop the "rules" and "terms" that pretend to be legal in online life.

The Jiefang Daily and Shangguan News reporter combed and found that the provisions of the "Provisions" are highly targeted, pointing directly to the unreasonable phenomena in e-commerce and O2O services.

Phenomenon: "Signing for the receipt of goods is regarded as recognizing the quality of the goods" "The operator enjoys the right of unilateral interpretation or the right of final interpretation"... Many online stores will mark the above tips on product packaging and even express packaging, but in real life, the proportion of consumers inspecting goods on site is not high, or due to logistics service restrictions, there is no condition to inspect goods before signing. However, the merchant uses the reasons that have been clearly stated that the consumer wants to inspect the goods and shirks his responsibility.

New Regulations: In this regard, the Provisions point out that these provisions are unfair and unreasonable standard clauses formulated by e-commerce operators by taking advantage of their dominant position, infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. The Provisions make it clear that standard terms with the above content are found to be invalid in accordance with law.

Phenomenon: Many online stores have said that consumers can enjoy the "seven-day no-reason return" service if they do not unseal the product when they receive it; but if the original packaging is unpacked, it is no longer applicable to this system. This clause makes consumers very passive: if they do not unseal, they cannot check the quality of the product; after the product is found to be defective, they still cannot get justice.

New rules: The Supreme People's Court said that consumers shopping in physical shopping malls can have on-site experiences, while online shopping is usually unable to do so. To this end, the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law has set up a seven-day return system without reason. From the perspective of improving this system, the Provisions clearly stipulate that consumers shall unseal and inspect the goods as necessary for inspection and do not affect the integrity of the goods, and e-commerce operators shall not claim that the seven-day no-reason return system shall not be applied on the grounds that the goods have been unsealed, and at the same time, it is clear that unless otherwise provided by law.

Phenomenon: Many e-commerce platforms label products or services as "self-operated", but the actual operator is not the platform party, but the brand side, confusing the concept of "platform self-operation" and "brand self-operation". When consumers encounter consumer disputes, the e-commerce platform will blame the after-sales service to the operator, indicating that "brand self-operation" is different from "platform self-operation".

New Regulations: Article 4 of the Provisions makes it clear that when e-commerce platforms carry out self-operated business, they shall bear the responsibility of commodity sellers or service providers. Even if the e-commerce platform is not actually carrying out its own business, but the logos it makes are enough to mislead consumers into believing that it is self-operated by the platform, the e-commerce platform operator must also bear the responsibility of the seller of goods or the service provider.

Phenomenon: Individual customer service personnel in online stores induce consumers to leave the platform for various reasons, including payment of goods through customer service personal social accounts. Once a consumer dispute occurs or the consumer finds that he has been deceived, the online store said that the transaction off the platform is the personal behavior of the customer service staff, and it is also the reason why the consumer takes it lightly, and it has nothing to do with the store. Consumers have to seek justice only by looking for customer service personnel.

New Regulations: Article 5 of the Provisions makes it clear that in the course of selling goods or providing services by business operators on the platform, their staff guide consumers to make payments through methods other than the payment methods provided by the trading platform, and the consumer claims that the business operators on the platform bear the responsibility of the sellers of goods or service providers, and the business operators in the platform defend on the grounds that they have not been paid by the trading platform, the people's court will not support them.

Phenomenon: After consumption, consumers have obtained gifts or preferential purchases from online stores. However, such products have defects in product quality, shelf life, etc. Contact the store customer service, but was told that this kind of product is a gift, is the store free or preferential to provide, do not provide after-sales service.

New rules: Prizes, giveaways, exchange items, etc. are not exempt from liability. Article 8 of the Provisions stipulates that if an e-commerce operator provides a prize, gift, or a commodity exchanged by a consumer in a promotional activity that causes damage to a consumer, the e-commerce operator shall bear the liability for compensation and shall not claim exemption on the ground that the prize or gift is provided free of charge or the goods are exchanged.

Phenomenon: After ordering takeaway, consumers find that there is a problem with takeaway products, complain to the takeaway platform, but are told that the products are provided by the settled merchants and have nothing to do with the platform. Or when negotiating with the settled merchants, they are told that the product is entrusted to a third party to process and produce, and there is no relationship with the settled merchants, and the consumer must communicate with the actual producer.

New Regulations: The Provisions point out that takeaway platforms and settled merchants must bear the civil liability system to protect the safety of the people's tongue. For example, if an online catering service platform operator (i.e., a "takeaway platform") fails to conduct real-name registration and review permits for online catering service providers in accordance with the law, or fails to perform obligations such as reporting and stopping providing online trading platform services, causing harm to consumers' lawful rights and interests, consumers have the right to claim that online catering service platform operators and online catering service providers bear joint and several liability. At the same time, the online catering service provider (i.e., commonly known as the "settled merchant") shall not claim exemption from liability on the grounds that the order is entrusted to others to process and produce.