It's another year of the "Double Eleven" shopping festival. In recent years, major e-commerce platforms have launched various fancy promotions to attract consumers to place orders, such as coupons, discounts on purchases, and pre-sale deposits... Some people have gone through a brainstorm to find products that meet their expectations, but there are also many who have fallen into the trap and encountered online shopping disputes.
Recently, a well-known brand has become a "miracle tool for collecting orders" with a return rate of up to 95%, making it a hot search topic. According to Xinhua News Agency, Ralph Lauren's GMV (Gross Merchandise Volume) on a certain platform's "Double 11" exceeded 1.6 billion, but the return rate reached an astonishing 95%. This phenomenon stems from consumers adding products from Ralph Lauren in order to enjoy discounts. Once the discount is obtained, these products will be returned to the merchant in a "seven day no reason refund" manner.
The thing I want to buy is only worth a little over a thousand yuan, but the platform's coupons require a down payment of 5000 yuan to get a 400 yuan discount. So I paid for a Ralph Lauren women's clothing priced at over 4000 yuan together and successfully made up the bill. After that, I just chose to refund in seconds, so I could get a few hundred yuan more for what I wanted, "said Ms. Jia, a consumer.
The reporter called Ralph Lauren and the customer service personnel of the platform regarding this matter, and the platform's customer service admitted that they have noticed the situation of combined returns. Regarding the losses incurred by the shop during the return process, Ralph Lauren customer service stated that they will seek resolution with the logistics company or platform.
Ralph Lauren is not the only "victim" under this full reduction mechanism. Not long ago, some media reported a poignant case: a women's clothing store that had been open for 7 years and had an annual sales of 20 million, due to changes in e-commerce platform rules and market competition, experienced a surge in return rates and a sharp decline in profits, ultimately falling on the eve of Double 11.
What is the impact on merchants if a product is returned within seconds after placing an order? How should the interests of merchants be protected? Will frequent "refunds only" violate the law? Are all products purchased online eligible for a 7-day no reason return or exchange policy?
For the lowest price, consumers crazily put together orders
The roast that "the rules of the Double 11 Festival are hard to understand" has long existed. This year, many e-commerce platforms also "conform to the voice of the public", emphasizing "simplifying the rules" in the promotion of the Double 11 Festival.
However, under the propaganda slogan of "no complicated calculations, reject fancy tricks", what people see are still platform coupons, red envelope rain, full discounts, final payments, deposits, pre-sales, gifts, merchant coupons, live room discounts... The dazzling rules directly make many citizens exclaim that "their brain cells have died".
Someone even created an Excel sheet specifically for the lowest price. Many consumers, in order to buy their desired products at a low price, choose to make a lump sum payment and then refund individual products. What impact does this have on merchants?
According to industry insiders' analysis, when consumers choose to return goods that have not been shipped, merchants need to bear 2 to 3 yuan of waybill and outbound costs, and for recalled goods that have been shipped, they need to bear at least 5 yuan of express delivery fees. If the return is made after the user signs for it, the merchant also needs to bear the partial return cost after deducting the shipping insurance. Even if the user applies for a return immediately, it wastes the merchant's promotion and operational investment.
Qu Baochun, a lawyer from the China Consumers Association and Beijing Shengting Law Firm, said that in consumer practice, when consumers return goods after full discounts, the money returned to them is usually the actual amount paid.
However, it should be noted that if the merchant has already shipped the goods and the consumer has received them, and there is a demand for refunds and returns during the inspection process, the most direct loss for the merchant is firstly the consumption of certain business energy. Secondly, returns and exchanges also require certain cost expenditures, and the merchant may bear the corresponding postage for refunds and returns. If the number of cancellations is huge, it is a significant loss for the merchant.
Returning within seconds, the merchant is very hurt
The platform's "full reduction" and consumers' "bundling" have long been common operations during promotional seasons such as "Double 11". But in recent years, the controversy caused by this promotional model has significantly increased. Ralph Lauren has become a "cramming tool" with a return rate of up to 95%. With such a "chain reaction", it is time to further optimize this model.
For consumers, pursuing discounts is innate; For businesses, becoming a "miracle seller" carries a significant sense of crisis. This incident raises questions about whether the setting of such promotional rules is truly reasonable? To prevent some merchants' products from being used as "order stuffing tools" and suffering losses in vain, their normal interests should also be protected.
No matter what the promotion rules are, only when merchants, consumers, and platforms achieve a win-win situation, can the prosperous sales situation be sustainable.
Double 11, as an annual shopping carnival, should have been a feast shared by consumers and businesses. However, the phenomenon of high return rates has made this feast seem "empty on the surface". While it may seem like there are "no empty seats", many are like "eating and breaking through". The real losers are the merchants on the platform. It's not that there is a problem with 'reducing orders to the maximum', but rather that there are loopholes in the platform's rules.
Another point to be taken seriously is that, compared to the "full discount" that relies on bundling orders, directly issuing coupons or launching discount activities is actually more popular among consumers and can also curb returns purely due to bundling orders.
Once the practice of combining orders for returns becomes a common means of "shearing wool", it will have a strong impact on consumer ethics. The behavior of consumers or merchants who resort to any means necessary for personal gain, if allowed to do so, ultimately damages the entire e-commerce ecosystem. So, regardless of how the platform and brand view this abnormal return phenomenon, regulatory authorities should intervene in a timely manner to prevent the spread of "false transactions".
Frequent malicious "refund only" faces legal responsibility
'Refund only' is designed to provide consumers with more convenient after-sales service, allowing for refunds to be obtained under specific conditions, such as purchasing fresh produce, agricultural products, or low-priced goods, without the need for returns. This simplifies the after-sales process and protects the rights of the vast majority of consumers. However, this service is inevitably exploited by some "wool party" and becomes a "shortcut to profit" for a few people.
Malicious "refund only" usually refers to consumers frequently using the "refund only" option without reasonable or fictitious reasons, attempting to obtain goods or refunds through improper means. According to reports, ordinary agricultural product merchants have to bear more than 200 "refund only" orders every month, and the loss of payment has exceeded 10% of the total revenue.
Economist Pan Helin suggests that e-commerce platforms should actively intervene in the refund determination process to ensure fairness and reasonableness, and explicitly require consumers to return the goods to the merchant as a prerequisite for refunds while enjoying the convenience of "refund only". For consumers who refuse to fulfill their return obligations, the platform should take punitive measures.
Wei Junjie, Deputy Director of Shanghai Jinma Law Firm, stated that malicious "refund only" behavior may constitute fraud or unjust enrichment, and may also violate relevant provisions of the Criminal Law on fraud, while also violating the basic principles of contract performance established by the Civil Code. If consumers frequently and maliciously use the "refund only" option, they will face a series of legal responsibilities, including compensating the merchant for the losses suffered as a result and assuming corresponding breach of contract liability.
There are precedents for such incidents. Recently, in a dispute over an information network sales contract concluded by the People's Court of Jizhou District, Tianjin, Zhao purchased a children's toy worth 17.9 yuan and applied for a "refund only" on the grounds of "sending the wrong color of the toy". Due to the merchant's failure to process in a timely manner, Zhao successfully refunded but did not return the item. Finally, through court mediation, Zhao agreed to compensate the merchant 200 yuan. Another malicious "refund only" occurred in Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province. After Xiaowu bought snacks on the Tiktok platform, he applied for "refund only after delivery" on the grounds of "less delivery and discomfort after consumption". The court finally decided that Xiaowu should refund 897 yuan to the merchant for goods.
There is no winner in the wool harvesting battle
There is no winner in the wool shearing war of 'refund only'. On the surface, it appears to be customer-centric and respects customers' consumption experience, but in the end, it may also turn customers into victims. When maliciously "shearing sheep" and it is difficult for businesses to protect their rights, they will not feel the good business environment of the platform, and will reduce cost investment, lower service standards, or withdraw from the platform and market. Over time, they will fall into a vicious cycle. The decline in product quality, increase in return rates, deterioration of customer consumption experience, and an increase in the number of merchants exiting, ultimately affect the survival of the platform.
At present, e-commerce platforms are still exploring and improving the concept of "refund only". Experts say that only with the joint efforts of platforms, merchants, and consumers can this move balance the rights and interests of all parties, bring more convenient after-sales protection, and create a more fair and healthy business environment. Resolving the issue of malicious "refund only" through various means, including legal channels, will effectively maintain the order and healthy development of the e-commerce market.
Have you applied for a return of a "bulk order" this year?
(Reference materials: Xinhua News Agency, People's Daily, China Youth Daily, News Morning Post, National Express, Economic Daily, Qilu Yidian, News Morning Post, Dajiang Network, CCTV News, Pengpai News)