Recently, a blogger posted on social platforms that the "national refund only" online shopping platform Jingtaotao is suspected of running away with money, and the amount involved is as high as 2 billion yuan, and the "refund only" model may be a "Ponzi scheme". Jingtao Taofang responded to this: in the normal operation of the company, the rumor of "running away with money" is untrue; Previously, the platform suffered from the "Wool Party" and took away 180 million yuan, and the risk control department is currently investigating one by one.
What is the reason why some users can't get a refund? What is the so-called "refund only" e-commerce sales model?
The "refund-only" price of platform products is much higher than that of "buy now"
It was rumored on the Internet that "the 'wool party' was only refunded but was retained"
According to public information, Jingtaotao is a shopping software App founded by Shanghai Jingjiabao E-commerce Co., Ltd., which claims to be based on the innovative model of "national refund only" as the core. There are two forms of "national refund only" and "buy now" on the Jingtaotao platform, and the platform opens a "refund only" mode for paid members, and become a member can enjoy "refund only" of goods with different amounts without return.
The membership level is divided into 9 levels, and the opening fee increases from 188 yuan to a maximum of 28,888 yuan. Depending on the membership level opened, the corresponding "refund only" amount is also different, ranging from 60,000 yuan to 1.45 million yuan per quarter.
It is important to note that members who want to enjoy the refund-only benefit will need to purchase the goods at a higher price. There is a huge difference between the purchase price of "refund-only" and "buy now".
△ Screenshot from Jingtaotao App
Recently, a blogger posted that a large number of "wool parties" poured into the Jingtaotao App to shop and then apply for a refund only, and the system showed that it would arrive in 30 days. But in the past two days, the platform suddenly ran away, claiming to have swept away 2 billion yuan. Many netizens left messages saying, "The 'Wool Party' was only refunded but was scolded by the platform."
△Image source: online social media platform
Some users reported that they could not get a refund after placing an order
The platform denied running away: it is investigating malicious swiping
The news of Jingtaotao's suspected run away quickly spread on the Internet, and some Jingtaotao users who defended their rights revealed that they placed orders on the platform to buy mobile phones and other goods, spending more than 100,000 yuan. After that, the application for a refund was unsuccessful, and the platform did not refund the fee. The user said that Jingtaotao is currently negotiating with them about refunds.
"The company's legal counsel has intervened and is still in the negotiation stage. We also want to open members and the like, which is operated according to the rules of the platform, not called 'wool', we can only say that we are too greedy. The user said that legal proceedings have now been initiated.
The reporter contacted Jingtaotao customer service, and the other party said that all business on the platform is normal at present, and users can buy goods normally. However, in response to the reporter's question about whether the member can only refund the member, the customer service did not respond positively.
The Home of Jingtaotao App shows, "If the refund order has not been processed for more than 15 days, please contact the platform customer service for assistance." The relevant person in charge of Jingtaotao also said that the statement that the money ran away is not true, and the company is operating normally.
The person in charge said that the situation that some users could not refund was because Jingtaotao was taken away about 180 million yuan by a premeditated group of "wool parties" some time ago, so it strengthened risk control management. "We have arranged for our technical team to check to ensure that all refund-eligible applications have been processed. We also reserve the right to pursue legal responsibility for any false rumors. ”
Jingtaotao said that the "refund-only" model is designed to benefit consumers and allow more people to experience the value of the platform, and it is also part of brand promotion. "As a business model, it has encountered some unforeseen problems in the implementation process, especially some bad actors who take advantage of loopholes in the rules to make improper profits."
"Refund only" violates the principle of fair dealing
Experts: Strengthen the legal supervision of new e-commerce models
For the "refund only" model launched by Jingtaotao, some industry insiders believe that this model is more like a drainage method. After many people get wool, they feel that there is sweetness, and they will fall more and more, and it will become more and more expensive.
Tang Jiansheng, deputy secretary-general of the Shanghai Municipal Commission for the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, said: "'Refund only' seems to be beneficial to consumers on the surface, but in fact violates the principle of fairness. There is a sense of gain for those who buy, and there is a sense of gain for what is sold, so that the transaction can be sustainable. Tang Jiansheng emphasized that in recent years, the so-called "refund only" rules introduced by some platforms have actually caused trouble to many merchants.
Luo Tianxuan, an associate professor at Tongji University Law School, believes that the "refund-only" model has exceeded the scope of normal transactions
Whether a buyer who is solely for a "refund only" is a consumer. The price of the item is much higher than the normal value of the item, and these consumers are more likely to get the item for free through the "refund only" route.
Merchant responsibility and rights protection issues. If there is indeed a problem with the product, the merchant should be liable; If it is not a product liability issue, the e-commerce platform advertises "refund only", which damages the interests of the merchant.
Identification of the "Refund Only for All" membership agreement. In normal transactions, "refund-only" does not require a membership threshold, and the platform distinguishes the "refund-only" amount by setting a membership agreement with different recharge amounts, and the supervision method should also be different from that of traditional goods trading.
△ Screenshot from Jingtaotao App
Luo Tianxuan said that it is difficult to determine whether the "refund-only" model is illegal based on the reported appearances. She believes that the following key points should be addressed:
whether there is unfair competition;
whether it harms the rights and interests of consumers;
Whether it infringes on the rights and interests of the merchant.
If there is an infringement, the Civil Code has corresponding provisions to protect it.