news

"A women's clothing store had a '618' turnover of about 10 million yuan, but after deducting 3.5 million yuan for 'refunds only', the loss was about 600,000 yuan after deducting various costs and expenses." "A washing machine worth 1,400 yuan was 'only refunded' because it could not be installed." "Three pairs of earrings worth 10 yuan were 'only refunded', and the seller drove thousands of miles to chase the buyer to seek an explanation." "A buyer who bought 11 yuan worth of clothes online was ordered to pay 800 yuan in compensation for 'only refunds'"... Recently, "refunds only" has become a hot word in the e-commerce field, and topics related to it have frequently become hot searches.

On August 9, Taobao's "refund only" optimization strategy officially took effect. It is reported that Taobao will enhance merchants' after-sales autonomy based on the new experience score, reduce or cancel after-sales intervention for high-quality stores, and upgrade the abnormal behavior recognition model of "refund only" for goods received, and reject refund only requests with abnormal behavior. This move indicates that the e-commerce platform has strengthened the protection of merchants' rights and interests while improving the consumer experience, which has attracted widespread attention from both inside and outside the industry.

As competition in the e-commerce field intensifies, "refund only" as an after-sales service method to attract and retain customers, originally intended to improve consumers' shopping experience and protect their rights, has been abused to a certain extent by some people, becoming a major pain point for businesses to operate normally, triggering a fierce game between buyers and sellers. In response to this phenomenon, many experts conducted in-depth analysis and comments from different angles.

Roundtable Forum

Cao Lei, Director of the E-commerce Research Center of China Internet Network Information Center

Dong Yizhi, lawyer at Shanghai Zhengce Law Firm

Fang Chaoqiang, lawyer at Beijing Yingke (Hangzhou) Law Firm

Li Xiaoxi, lawyer at Shanghai Shenhao Law Firm

Cheng Liang Lawyer at Wanshang Tianqin Law Firm

Zhu Qiucheng General Manager of Ningbo New Oriental Industry and Trade Co., Ltd.

(Ranking in no particular order)

In 2021, an e-commerce platform launched the "refund only" service for the first time. In December last year, many mainstream e-commerce platforms in China followed suit. Is the birth of "refund only" a benefit or a disadvantage?

Li Xiaoxi:The earliest e-commerce platform launched the "refund only" after-sales service, which was probably intended to be a means of acquiring customers in the fiercely competitive platform sales channels. Because online shopping is virtual shopping, and the actual situation of the physical goods is not known before unpacking the express package, the "refund only" after-sales service model can indeed win a lot of customer groups.

Dong Yizhi:Since its launch, the "refund only" policy of e-commerce has been aimed at improving consumer experience and reducing unnecessary return processes, especially for fresh produce and other products that are not easy to preserve. However, as time goes by, this policy has gradually exposed some problems, such as malicious use and damage to the rights of merchants, which has aroused widespread attention and discussion in the industry.

Cheng Liang:The original intention of the "refund only" policy is to attract consumers and increase platform traffic, so that more consumers can place orders without worries. For merchants, it can increase stickiness with consumers and help screen high-quality consumers. At the same time, it also urges merchants to pay attention to the quality of the goods they sell, improve service quality, and enhance the awareness of honest business. For consumers, it not only solves the worries of shopping and allows them to buy with confidence, but also reduces the cumbersome process of after-sales handling of problematic goods, improving the shopping experience.

Cao Lei:When “refund only” was first introduced, the benefits definitely outweighed the disadvantages. This can effectively improve the shopping experience, especially for low-priced goods, and save logistics costs. It can also force merchants to improve product quality and service levels. However, some consumers now take advantage of the convenience of the “refund only” policy to make malicious refunds or false complaints, and even form “professional fraud” gangs, which damage the legitimate rights and interests of merchants, affect the normal business order of merchants, and even involve illegal misappropriation of merchant funds. Judging from the current situation, the disadvantages should outweigh the advantages.

The original intention of launching "refund only" was to protect the rights and interests of consumers and provide more convenient services, but some people abused the rules and made malicious refunds, which disrupted the normal operation of the rules, and even a special "薅 ...

Cao Lei:For the platform, malicious refunds by some consumers not only cause unnecessary economic losses to merchants, but also affect the operating order of the e-commerce platform, which goes against the original intention of this service, and ultimately causes the loss of merchants, a decline in consumer trust, and is not conducive to creating a good business environment.

Cheng Liang:The “refund only” policy has indeed had some negative effects in the actual implementation process, especially for merchants. The “refund only” policy has made merchants miserable and lost both goods and money; the platform’s blind support for “refund only” has also increased the conflicts between merchants and platforms. For some consumers, the abuse of “refund only” and the pursuit of small profits have also increased the conflicts between merchants and consumers. After some merchants complained to the platform to no avail, they resorted to the court. At present, some courts have also ruled in favor of merchants’ requests for consumers to return goods, and ruled that consumers should bear the merchant’s rights protection costs, so consumers have added to the burden of litigation.

Li Xiaoxi:From the perspective of maintaining a fair trading environment, the "refund only" rule only considers the interests of buyers and ignores the costs of sellers. The refund for "refund only" is still the payment made by the buyer to the third-party payment platform, rather than the platform payment made by the platform to the buyer. The sellers are the ones whose rights are ultimately damaged. The goods have been shipped, but the payment has not been received, and the goods cannot be taken back. If this cycle continues, the rights of sellers cannot be protected, which is not conducive to the stability of the platform trading environment.

Zhu Qiucheng:The mainstream view now is that "refund only" greatly improves the shopping experience of "consumers". The truth is just the opposite. "Refund only" destroys the shopping experience of consumers. First of all, most "refund only" is suspected of violating the "Civil Code". If the amount is too large, it may even be considered as illegal embezzlement.

Secondly, “refund only” may seem like consumers are getting a bargain once or twice, but the wool comes from the sheep. Merchants will eventually add the cost of “refund only” to the price of the goods, and the consumers themselves are the ones who pay the bill.

Again, "refund only" has brought inconvenience to some legitimate merchants. At present, for self-protection, merchants have refused to ship to areas with a high incidence of "refund only", which seriously affects consumers' shopping experience.

Finally, the “refund only” policy actually antagonizes and intensifies the originally harmonious relationship between consumers and sellers. Sellers no longer even call them “close friends”. When sellers serving consumers are worried every day, or even full of resentment, as a consumer, the shopping experience will definitely not be good.

Just like the two sides of a coin, while “refund only” brings convenience to consumers, it also causes certain troubles for some sellers who operate in compliance with regulations. So how to crack the unreasonable “refund only” policy?

Li Xiaoxi:When setting the "refund only" rule, the platform can consider giving sellers certain channels for appeal, or setting corresponding levels and conditions for "refund only", determining what conditions trigger what rules, and what severity level allows for what relief channels. By improving the after-sales rules, relative fairness between buyers and sellers can be achieved, rather than a blind zero-sum game.

Cheng Liang:Careful implementation of the "refund only" policy requires the platform to reasonably balance the relationship between merchants and consumers. At present, some platforms have robot customer service involved in "refund only" and automatically recommend "refund only". The broad implementation caliber is more likely to cause disputes. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the involvement of manual customer service and strengthen the review. The review can be combined with factors such as the product problems reported by consumers, consumer needs, the frequency and number of "refund only" for the same account, the evaluation of the product itself, and the number of complaints.

Dong Yizhi:How regulators should regulate the “refund only” policy of e-commerce platforms to balance the rights and interests of merchants and consumers is an issue that requires careful consideration. For example, clarify the rules and standards, specify under what circumstances consumers can apply for "refund only" and under what circumstances merchants can refuse such requests; strengthen the platform's responsibilities, ensure that the platform rules are fair and reasonable, and do not impose unreasonable restrictions or unreasonable conditions on merchants; protect consumer rights and interests, and ensure that consumers can easily apply for refunds when they encounter product quality problems or are dissatisfied with services; safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of merchants, and avoid the abuse of the "refund only" policy, which causes merchants to bear unreasonable losses; provide merchants and consumers with a fair and transparent complaint mechanism to ensure that either party has the opportunity to file a complaint and receive fair treatment when they feel they are treated unfairly; use big data and algorithm technology to help platforms more accurately judge product quality and make reasonable refund decisions; strengthen legal and compliance training for merchants and platforms to improve their legal awareness and compliance operation capabilities; improve consumers' legal knowledge and awareness so that they can reasonably exercise their "refund only" rights; establish a coordination mechanism involving multiple parties such as the government, e-commerce platforms, and consumer associations to jointly promote the implementation and improvement of consumer rights protection; continuously monitor the implementation of the "refund only" policy of e-commerce platforms, regularly evaluate the policy effects, and make timely adjustments and improvements. Through the above measures, regulators can promote the "refund only" policy of e-commerce platforms to be more fair and reasonable, while protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and merchants and promoting the healthy development of the e-commerce industry.

Fang Chaoqiang:As for breaking the unreasonable "refund only" policy, I personally think that "the person who tied the bell must untie it", and we still have to rely on the platform. First, optimize the "refund only" policy and mechanism, such as optimizing the consumer's evidence mechanism for defective goods, so that consumers bear reasonable and appropriate burden of proof; ensure that neutral third parties make fair and reasonable judgments; provide more procedural guarantees in the merchant's complaint procedures to avoid strong decisions by the platform, etc.; second, the platform can establish a specific refund risk control model from a technical level, and comprehensively assist in judgment from aspects such as consumer accounts and their "refund only" rights protection records, merchant reputation scores, complaints about similar products, and the rationality of the description of the defects in the complaints.

What do you think about the application of “refund only” in the e-commerce market?

Cheng Liang:The emergence of the "refund only" rule is the product of competition among e-commerce platforms. It has played an important role in increasing the number of users of e-commerce platforms and enhancing consumer stickiness. At the same time, it also urges merchants to provide high-quality goods and services. Compared with consumer protection measures such as "three times compensation for fake products" and "seven days without reason" that have already fallen into the legal and regulatory levels, "refund only" is just a rule introduced by the platform. In the specific implementation process, there are also situations such as inconsistent standards and non-standard implementation, which has caused certain damage to the rights and interests of merchants. However, as a rule and system, the emergence of the "refund only" policy has played a positive role in protecting consumer rights and interests and activating e-commerce transactions. I believe that through continuous improvement in practice, this policy will definitely play a greater positive role.

Dong Yizhi:E-commerce platforms have begun to optimize and adjust the "refund only" policy. For example, Taobao announced that it will give merchants different degrees of "refund only" autonomy based on the store's comprehensive experience score, reduce the platform's active intervention, and encourage merchants to negotiate with consumers first. This adjustment is intended to balance consumer rights and merchant interests and avoid the abuse of the "refund only" policy.

At the same time, some merchants and consumers have expressed their opinions on the "refund only" policy. Merchants generally believe that the "refund only" policy has increased their operating costs and risks to a certain extent, and hope that the platform can introduce more reasonable rules. Some consumers said that "refund only" does facilitate their shopping experience in some cases, but they are also worried that merchants may reduce the quality of goods or service levels.

In addition, regulatory authorities have also begun to pay attention to this phenomenon. The "Interim Provisions on Anti-Unfair Competition on the Internet" issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation has put forward some normative requirements for the "refund only" policy of e-commerce platforms, such as not using service agreements, transaction rules, etc. to impose unreasonable restrictions on merchants or attach unreasonable conditions.

□ Our reporter Wang Xuguang