"Plus 1 record"
"This is the most enthusiastic admissions propaganda"
Law students are making a double move again!
The ingredients, efficacy, and content of the two facial cleansers are basically the same, but there is a price difference of 67 yuan? The "pink tax" phenomenon of female consumers' product prices much higher than men's products has attracted the attention of five students from East China University of Political Science and Law and Shandong University.
They formed the "Pink Tax Squad" to sue L'Oréal. Recently, the progress of this incident has attracted attention.
Screenshot source: Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice "Rule of Law Shanghai"
Facial cleanser is divided into men and women, and the price difference is 67 yuan?
According to the Shanghai Legal Daily, on January 14 last year, Zhang bought the "L'Oreal Rejuvenating Facial Cleanser" for women at an online store for 149 yuan. After paying, she saw "L'Oréal Men's Water Moisturizing Amino Acid Facial Cleanser" on the store recommendation page, with a price of 82 yuan and a net content of 180 ml.
The difference in price per 100ml is as high as 73.6 yuan. Both cleansers focus on amino acid mildness and moisturizing, but the price difference is doubled.
Image source: Huazheng Youth
"I thought it was just the difference in price caused by the different ingredient content of men's and women's facial cleansers, but after consulting customer service and asking for the ingredient list of the two products, I found that the ingredients of the two products were almost the same as the main efficacy. ”
The students also found that "there should not be a big price difference in terms of packaging cost alone", and "the promotion of the detail page of women's facial cleansing products has more efficacy." ”
After collecting relevant information on the Internet and learning about the concept of "pink tax", Zhang said that it is an undeniable fact that female consumers are in a disadvantageous position in some consumption fields, whether it is skin care and beauty or electronic products, the price of similar items is always high after being labeled "women's only".
For this reason, she and five other classmates formed the "Pink Tax Team", arguing that L'Oréal's behavior was suspected of price discrimination and did not protect the right of male and female consumers to enjoy fair trade in accordance with the law, so they filed a lawsuit with the court to demand a full refund.
The defendant company refunded the full amount, and the law student refused to sign the letter of commitment
After the case was filed, the company said it was willing to refund the full amount, but asked the students to sign a letter of commitment promising not to publish on social networking platforms or state all information and matters related to the case to third parties (including media, etc.).
Considering that part of the commitment letter was not conducive to subsequent rights protection, the students rejected this request. Recently, the students withdrew their lawsuit under the mediation of the court, and L'Oréal refunded the cost of the facial cleanser.
Although the lawsuit has come to an end, the protection of rights has not ended. In order to make more consumers aware of the price discrimination of the "Pink Tax", the students initiated the topic of "Why is Pink so much more expensive" on multiple social platforms, explained the "Pink Tax", and gave relevant suggestions to netizens to protect their rights.
Zhang said: "Most people think that 'it has always been this way' is common sense, and do not question the rationality of the existence of the 'pink tax'. We hope to fight against gender-based price discrimination, inspire consumers to defend their rights, and resist the 'Pink Tax'." ”
Law students have sued on several occasions over consumer rights issues
China Youth Daily noticed that as early as 2019, the case of students from East China University of Political Science and Law suing Shanghai Disneyland for banning food and drink caused heated discussions. Finally, the defendant, Shanghai International Theme Park Co., Ltd., compensated the plaintiff and the plaintiff RMB 50 (paid in court), and Shanghai Disneyland amended the relevant admission rules.
In addition, there have been a number of cases in which law students sued for infringement of consumer rights and interests.
China Youth Daily (ID: zqbcyol Collation: Chen Yinshan) Comprehensive: Shanghai Legal News (Reporter: Chen Yingting), Huazheng Youth, China Youth Daily previously reported