Who is hurt by the abuse of “refund only”?
2024-08-07
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
"Many people maliciously request refunds, often with the excuse that they don't know how to eat, that the food doesn't taste good, or that they can't get used to it." In recent days, the "refund only" clauses of major e-commerce platforms have sparked controversy. According to reports, some ordinary agricultural product merchants have to bear more than 200 refund-only orders each month, and the loss of payment has exceeded 10% of their total revenue.
As an additional service, the original intention of "refund only" is to reduce after-sales costs in order to protect the rights and interests of consumers. When it was first launched on some platforms, this mechanism was mainly aimed at foods that are inconvenient to return, such as fruits and seafood, as well as low-priced goods that "are not enough to cover the shipping costs." However, as "rest assured to order" has become the standard for major platforms to compete for the sinking market, the coverage of "refund only" has become wider and wider. In many cases, as long as the buyer is subjectively dissatisfied, either the system automatically "refunds quickly" or the platform customer service mechanically intervenes, and the seller often has no way to defend himself. Some individuals take advantage of loopholes and make money everywhere, and some even openly sell "19.9 yuan to study and refund only" courses.
"Consumers first" is of course the most simple market rule, but once the rules are abused, merchants will not be the only ones who will be hurt in the end. As the number of related disputes increases, some "merchant mutual aid alliances" and "merchant mutual aid associations" have appeared on social platforms, and some people have traveled thousands of kilometers to visit buyers to "ask for an explanation." More commonly, merchants are worried about "losing all their money" and closing their stores, or they include the loss of returns in the cost and increase the selling price, and some "break the jar" and sell inferior goods as good ones... Once the mutual distrust between buyers and sellers intensifies, it will be much more difficult for ordinary consumers to satisfy their consumption and to properly protect their rights. Ignoring loopholes and calculating against each other will ultimately destroy the reputation of the platform and hurt the entire online consumer ecosystem.
As a bridge connecting buyers and sellers, the platform has the responsibility to maintain a balance between the rights and interests of both parties. In fact, "refund only" itself is a hedge against unfair treaties such as "no refund, no exchange". To make it work better, we must avoid falling into another extreme simply and crudely. Reducing the lazy reliance on algorithms and making the boundaries of dispute determination clearer are the directions that the platform needs to continue to explore. In related cases, some courts have also made judgments in favor of merchants in accordance with the law, requiring not only refunds to buyers for the purchase price, but also the travel expenses and evidence collection fees paid by the merchants to recover the purchase price. All parties work together to make those who abuse tools for improper benefits pay the price, which is also a protection for rule-abiding people.
