The dispute over the refund of the advance deposit caused by the launch of the Xiaomi SU7: the balance between the rights and interests of consumers and the interests of merchants
On March 28, 2024, the Xiaomi SU7 electric car was officially launched, with a starting price of 215,900 yuan, and the number of reservations within 24 hours of listing reached an astonishing 88,898 units, which aroused widespread attention and heated discussions among consumers and netizens. However, this was followed by complaints from some consumers that the deposit could not be refunded after paying the deposit on the Xiaomi app and locking the vehicle configuration in advance, questioning Xiaomi's previously announced promise of "7 days of refundable deposit without reason". This incident once again pushed the consumer rights protection measure of "seven-day no reason to return" to the forefront of public opinion, and triggered a discussion on the balance between consumer rights and interests of merchants.
In response to consumer complaints, Xiaomi officially responded. Xiaomi said that consumers can modify the vehicle configuration at any time within 7 days after paying the deposit, and the order will be automatically locked after 7 days. However, if the consumer takes the initiative to lock the configuration in advance, it means that the deposit is non-refundable. Xiaomi emphasized that in the APP car purchase process, there are many prompts to remind consumers to carefully consider whether to lock the configuration, once locked, it will not be refunded.
From a legal point of view, the "seven-day no reason to return" is an important provision in the Consumer Rights Protection Law, which aims to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. According to the regulations, consumers can return goods without reason within 7 days after receiving them, and the merchant shall accept them. However, at the same time, the law also sets certain conditions for "seven-day return without reason", that is, the returned goods should be in good condition and will not affect the secondary sale. A lawyer pointed out that if the consumer uses the product within the refund period, so that the product cannot be sold again, then the no-reason return rule no longer applies.
In the case of Xiaomi SU7, the consumer paid a deposit on the APP and locked the configuration in advance, which actually started the car purchase process, which is equivalent to "using" the product. Once locked in advance, it means that Xiaomi needs to reserve a vehicle for that consumer, and this vehicle can no longer be sold to other consumers during the lockdown period, which is also an opportunity cost for Xiaomi. Therefore, it is reasonable for Xiaomi to set the rule that the deposit is non-refundable in the car purchase process.
Of course, this does not mean that merchants can arbitrarily set unreasonable refund conditions and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. As an important measure for the protection of consumer rights and interests, the original intention of "seven-day no reason to return" is to prevent merchants from taking advantage of information asymmetry and other dominant positions to damage the interests of consumers. But at the same time, we must also recognize that "no reason" is not the same as "no condition". Consumers should also abide by the relevant rules when exercising their rights, and must not harm the legitimate interests of merchants.
On the issue of the return of the Xiaomi SU7 advance deposit, it is also necessary to analyze the specific problems on a case-by-case basis. If the consumer does not lock the configuration in advance within 7 days after paying the deposit, but asks for a refund, then Xiaomi should refund the deposit unconditionally. However, if the consumer takes the initiative to lock in in advance, he or she needs to bear the corresponding responsibility and accept the rule that the deposit is non-refundable. This is not only a reminder to consumers, but also a protection of the interests of merchants.
In general, the controversy over the refund of the advance deposit caused by the launch of the Xiaomi SU7 once again highlights the problem of how to balance the rights and interests of consumers and merchants under the consumer rights protection measure of "seven-day no reason to return". As consumers, while enjoying our rights, we should also fulfill corresponding obligations, and we cannot one-sidedly emphasize our own interests and ignore the legitimate rights and interests of merchants. As a merchant, on the basis of respecting the rights and interests of consumers, we should also set reasonable transaction rules, improve transparency, and protect the interests of consumers to the greatest extent. Only by establishing a relationship of mutual understanding and mutual respect between consumers and businesses can a healthy and sustainable consumption environment be built.
Today, with the continuous emergence of new technologies and new business forms, the protection of consumer rights and interests is facing new challenges. The case of Xiaomi SU7 provides us with a good opportunity to think. As more and more innovative products and services enter the market, we need to keep pace with the times while adhering to the basic principles of consumer rights protection, formulate more detailed and flexible rules according to different scenarios and different situations, and find a balance between consumer rights and business interests. This requires the joint efforts of consumers, merchants, regulatory authorities and other parties to jointly build an honest, standardized and orderly consumption environment and promote the healthy development of the consumer market.