Not long ago, with the release of new versions of after-sales service management rules on Taobao and Jingdong platforms, the "refund only" service seems to have become the standard configuration of several major domestic e-commerce platforms. However, in addition to winning the cheers and applause of many consumers, some behaviors of "exploiting loopholes" and "picking wool" have made platform merchants complain......
Recently, Mr. Guan, an e-commerce merchant, posted a video to break the news that a female customer carried out a full "refund only" operation after purchasing 4 items worth 1,800 yuan, but only returned one item and took away all the other 3 couriers.
Mr. Guan, a merchant, said that the woman bought 4 products in his store through the Taobao platform, took a link and asked the merchant to develop 4 express deliveries, and he didn't think much about it at the time. However, after the courier was delivered, the woman refused to accept one of them, took the other three, and successfully applied for a full "refund only", with a total amount of more than 1,800 yuan.
After Mr. Guan contacted the express station, he learned that this person had operated thousands of express deliveries. Surveillance footage from the express station shows that the woman went to the post station to pick up the goods and took the items in a snakeskin bag. In addition, the woman is also suspected of calling a "cargo lala" to haul the courier. After that, Mr. Guan appealed to the platform, but was unsuccessful. At present, Mr. Guan said that he has reported to the police.
Source: Internet
In response to the woman's "refund only" and then took away the express delivery, many netizens called "I don't understand" and "it's too bad"; some netizens spoke out for the merchant "'Refund only' is too bullying for the merchant", calling for "the platform should also protect the merchant"; Some netizens pointed out that "don't beat the 'refund only' to death with a stick", it is still very effective for the payment that has not been delivered or the small goods are damaged......
Source: Screenshot of Weibo netizen comments
In this regard, Lin Zhihui, a member of the lawyer expert database of "Rule of Law Daily" and a senior partner of Beijing Yingke (Huizhou) Law Firm, pointed out that if the woman deliberately refused to accept only a part of the goods and applied for a full refund by means of separate delivery, her behavior may involve fraud, fictitious transactions and other illegal acts. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, intentionally defrauding others and seeking illegal benefits constitutes the crime of fraud. In this case, the woman's use of the platform rules and the so-called "loopholes" to cause the merchant to have a false perception and seek illegal benefits may constitute the crime of fraud. In addition, if it is true that such acts have been committed thousands of times, the legal liability may be further increased.
In fact, the reason why this incident has attracted widespread attention may be that the "refund only" measure launched by e-commerce platforms was originally to better protect the rights and interests of consumers, but it has become a tool to "take advantage" and "gather wool" under the malicious operation of a small number of consumers.
On December 25, 2023, Taobao issued the "Notice on Changing the Dispute Handling Rules of the Taobao Platform", in which the core changes of the rules include the addition of new clauses for products that support 7-day no-reason returns or can be rejected by the buyer as determined by the platform, and support refund processing for buyers who have successfully rejected the visa.
Source: Screenshot of the official website of Taobao platform rules
On December 27, 2023, JD.com released the revised "JD Open Platform After-sales Service Management Rules" and "JD Open Platform Transaction Dispute Settlement General Rules", the former adding "Refund Non-Return Execution Standard" and the latter adding "Transaction Dispute Support Users Only Refund Only".
Source: Screenshot of JD's service account
It is worth noting that the "refund-only" service was first launched by Pinduoduo as an after-sales mechanism. In 2021, Pinduoduo launched the service, and consumers can apply for "refund only, no return" if there is an after-sales problem with the order within 15 days from the date of confirmation of receipt. Nowadays, with the successive entry of Taobao and JD.com, "refund only" seems to have become the standard configuration of large online shopping platforms.
Zhao Shujie, a member of the lawyer expert database of "Rule of Law Daily" and a partner of Beijing East & Concord Law Firm, told the reporter of the rule of law network that the launch of the "refund only" function is to improve the shopping experience of users and effectively save social resources when logistics costs exceed the value of goods. Compared with the "7-day no reason to return", this more user-friendly mechanism has allowed Pinduoduo, which was the first to launch this service, to fight its way out of the red sea of e-commerce, and is now being imitated by other platforms. However, some users abuse the mechanism to maliciously refund money, which increases the business risk and cost of the merchant, and will make the relationship between the user, the platform and the merchant more tense.
Indeed, the improvement of the consumer experience brought by the "refund-only" model is obvious, however, the risk of platform merchants being "woolened" derived from it cannot be ignored. In fact, there have been a number of lawsuits that have taken advantage of the "refund-only" loophole to encroach on merchants' interests.
In April 2023, Madoka (pseudonym) placed an order on an online platform to buy a mung bean cake priced at 18.9 yuan. On the third day after signing for the delivery, she applied for a "refund only". After the refund, the merchant asked Madoka to return the goods, but Madoka ignored her. After many unsuccessful negotiations, Madoka was sued by the merchant to the court. In the end, the court ruled that Xiaoyuan should compensate the merchant for the loss of 18.9 yuan and the lawyer's file fee of 330 yuan.
In May 2023, Ms. Zhang (pseudonym) bought a sports cap priced at 8.6 yuan at an online shopping platform store, and after receiving the product, she negotiated with the store owner because the hat was small and the brim was stained. After Ms. Zhang accepted the merchant's 5 yuan compensation, she applied to the platform for a "refund only". After the refund, Ms. Zhang ignored the store's request for return, and the owner sued Ms. Zhang in desperation. In the end, Ms. Zhang took the initiative to return the payment and compensated the owner for the cost of defending her rights for the lawsuit.
……
"If the 'refund-only' rules set by the platform are too lenient, it will undoubtedly increase the moral hazard in it. For merchants, if the platform blindly supports 'refund-only' that is not due to product quality problems or merchant service problems and the logistics cost exceeds the value of the goods, it is also suspected of infringing the merchant's right to dispose of it. Lawyer Zhao Shujie pointed out that for the platform, the original intention of improving the user experience, saving social resources and forcing merchants to improve the quality of products and services through "refund only" is good, but the platform must build a clear and strict review system, provide merchant appeal channels, find a balance between safeguarding the interests of consumers and protecting the interests of merchants, and avoid the "wool party" abusing the mechanism to infringe on the rights and interests of merchants. Merchants must first improve the quality of their products, and secondly, they must actively use the platform's appeal mechanism to provide sufficient evidence to protect their rights and interests when there is a "refund only" dispute.
"Consumers should also uphold the principle of good faith and exercise their rights legally and reasonably, and cannot blindly use the rules to 'gather wool' with the luck that the subject matter of the product is small and the merchant will not sue, otherwise, it will be necessary to bear the liability for breach of contract, and it may also constitute the crime of embezzlement or fraud. Lawyer Zhao reminded.
Topic selection and planning|Legal Network Research Institute
Text: Huang Meiling
Producer|Yu Yingbo
Editor|Fan Jie
【Copyright Notice】Please indicate the source of the WeChat public account of the rule of law network for reprinting.