Just past the 315 Consumer Rights Day, it is estimated that everyone has been maddened by the "foot stepping on the old altar of sauerkraut".
Shi Chao's favorite food when he went to college was the old altar sauerkraut noodles, I bought several boxes to put in the dormitory for supper to eat...
Looking back now, it was really disgusting to open the door for disgust, and the mouth was full of the smell of foot skin.
In addition to this unfortunate incident of hundreds of millions of people dropping San together, Shichao also found a "good news" that may be closely related to everyone.
On March 2 this year, the Supreme People's Court adopted a Provision of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Online Consumer Dispute Cases (I).
The regulations will take effect on March 15. ▼
The third paragraph of the provisions clearly states: "Where an e-commerce operator claims that the no-reason return system provided for in Article 25 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law is not applicable on the grounds that the goods have been unsealed, the people's court will not support it." ”
To put it simply, starting from March 15 this year, e-commerce companies can no longer refuse buyers' "seven days without reason to return" on the grounds that "the goods have been unsealed".
The refund of the packaging of the goods within seven days after the unsealing has also received a clear legal support.
oh? Does that mean that after the things bought online feel chopped early, can you first cool for 7 days, and then go unconditionally back and change?
Don't be in a hurry, when Shi Chao looked down at this clause, he found that there was still a little restriction on the clause.
Speaking of the vernacular point, if we want to go for 7 days without reason to return or exchange goods, the following goods are absolutely impossible to return.
(1) Goods customized by consumers;
(b) fresh and perishable commodities;
(3) Audio-visual products, computer software, and other digital goods downloaded online or unsealed by consumers;
(4) Newspapers and periodicals delivered.
The definition of these goods is easier to understand, because once these four types of goods are returned, it is difficult for merchants to make secondary sales.
For example, you bought a fresh lobster on the X horse network, bought it home and processed it halfway and found that this thing is blue and full of thorns, and you can't handle it yourself, so it is definitely not okay to retreat at this time.
The next few types of goods, it belongs to the category of can not be applied, as long as the consumer confirmed before the purchase, generally do not give a refund.
(1) Commodities that are likely to affect personal safety or life and health after unpacking, or commodities that are likely to cause changes in the quality of commodities after unpacking;
(2) Goods whose value is depreciated once activated or tried;
(3) Products that are close to the shelf life and defective goods that have been clearly indicated at the time of sale.
Products like the first "easy to affect personal safety or life and health" involve a little more extensive things than we think.
For example, clothes such as underwear, socks, underwear, etc., unopened packaged foods, drugs, health care products, chemical reagents, etc., are all within the scope of "affecting personal safety".
Think about it, not everyone has a special habit of liking "original clothes", and such a disgusting thing as returning clothes worn close to the body, Shi Chao feels that it is no less than stepping on sauerkraut.
"Original" smack... ▼
As for the things related to eating, if it is not a quality problem, the refund after opening is indeed unreasonable, and even if the merchant receives the return, it will normally be scrapped.
The more controversial point is the second article , " Goods whose value is depreciated after activation or trial " .
You may not believe it, but digital products such as mobile phones, notebooks, tablets, cameras, etc., are included in this rule.
As we all know, generally when we buy a new mobile phone and come back, the first thing we have to do is activate.
For example, the well-known Samsung plug SIM card activation ▼
After all, this thing can't be used if you don't activate it.
But once activated, even if you don't use it much, the warranty time has already begun to calculate, and at the same time, the value of digital devices as a commodity will be greatly devalued.
Because in the manufacturer's perspective, the activated digital device is no longer a new product, and it can only be sold as a second-hand device or an official overturned machine.
The point of controversy is actually here, if the user does not activate the device to use the product, how can you know whether the product is suitable for yourself?
Manufacturers have a lot of room for operation here.
Some vendors allow users to refund after activation, such as Apple.
As long as the product purchased on Apple's official website is not damaged, the packaged product is not damaged, and it can be refunded within 14 days.
Some manufacturers do not have similar return terms, there is a problem to return, the merchant is basically a face does not recognize the state.
In this case, if the manufacturer is tough, the result of consumer complaints is generally not too beautiful...
Of course, in the refund process, merchants sometimes suffer losses, and what's more, the e-commerce platform directly drills loopholes in the rules in the refund order, and there are not a few things that make profits from it.
A buddy of Shichao, it happens to be doing e-commerce, I will not say what he does specifically, in short, he has stores on major platforms.
This guy poured bitter water with me when he had nothing to do, saying that he was pit by the platform again, and he was tricked.
One of the things he happened to have happened to be related to refunds recently.
He recently encountered a pop-up window where the platform advised merchants to open the "use first and pay later" function.
This function is obviously to help merchants increase transaction volume, but on the other hand, buyers are not satisfied after using it, and the proportion of returns will be quite high.
The key is that even if it is returned, the platform will not refund the commission of this order.
It was originally a thing that you and I wanted, but he found that the platform was using some very disgusting ways to trick merchants into joining.
For example, when opening the seller's client, it will be crazy pop-up window this function is recommended.
The most annoying thing is that if you don't click on the "fork" to fork the window off, click anywhere else, the platform system will automatically turn on this function by default.
If you don't hit the fork, the next time you open the client, it will pop up again.
It is not easy to cancel this feature after clicking on it, and you need to wait for 7 days of review by the platform.
Of course, in these 7 days, this feature still has to be counted as money...
ShiChao also did not expect that now the platform can even use the return of goods to accumulate wealth, buyers and sellers eat at both ends, thinking about it very much.
In general, there is no reason to return the goods in 7 days, which seems to be a harmless trust mechanism between buyers and sellers.
But the reality is that it involves the struggle between the platform, logistics, merchants, and buyers.
Many things on the e-commerce platform still exist outside the rules of the game, behind an ordinary "no reason to return", there is always one party to make big or small sacrifices.
However, Shichao feels that whether it is a merchant or a platform, as long as everyone is willing to work together to improve the ecology of the "refund" link.
The chaos in the "seven days without reason refund" in the future may be the same as the fake goods scattered all over the previous e-commerce platform, less and less.