During the National Day holiday, various places are experiencing peak consumption. When shopping online and offline, have you ever encountered problems such as incorrect goods, obvious gaps between the actual product and the publicity, false publicity, etc.? When dining out on holidays, have you ever encountered a private room with a minimum consumption? When checking out, a service fee that was not notified in advance came out of thin air. Do you want to accept it? What should we do if a merchant only allows the purchase of set meals during holidays and cannot order dishes a la carte? How should we protect our rights when encountering overbearing clauses?
If the goods purchased online are not right, can I claim "refund one and compensate three"?
Have you ever had the experience of purchasing goods in a live broadcast room, only to find that the goods were incorrect after receiving them? You want to protect your rights, but you encounter various difficulties. what to do? Recently, the Beijing Internet Court heard a consumer dispute over a live broadcast. A consumer, Ms. Shi, took a fancy to a jade bracelet in a jade live broadcast room. The merchant said the bracelet was of high quality, but after receiving it, Ms. Shi found that it was not what the merchant described.
Ms. Shi liked this bracelet very much regardless of its style or color. In the end, she spent more than 70,000 yuan to buy the bracelet. But after receiving the goods, Ms. Shi found that the actual quality of the bracelet seemed to be significantly different from the advertised quality. Ms. Shi believed that she had encountered false publicity, so she took the merchant to court.
Judge Liu Chengzu of the Second Comprehensive Trial Division of the Beijing Internet Court: Based on the plaintiff’s application, we initiated the judicial appraisal process. After confirmation by the forensic appraisal agency, the texture of this jade bracelet can only reach the level of porcelain ground, that is, the level of winter melon ground, which is two to three grades different from the advertised high-ice oil gel texture.
According to Article 55 of the "Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China", if an operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, he shall increase compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer at the request of the consumer. The amount of increased compensation shall be three times the price of the consumer's purchase of goods or the cost of receiving services.
Liu Chengzu: We believe that there is a big discrepancy between the promotional content of the anchor in the live broadcast room and the actual bracelets delivered, which induces consumers to purchase. We support the proposition of refunding one for three as demanded by consumers.
In the end, the Beijing Internet Court ruled that the merchant involved should refund more than 70,000 yuan for the bracelet to Ms. Shi, and at the same time compensate Ms. Shi more than 210,000 yuan for three times the purchase price.
If there is a problem with the purchased product, is the "refund one, compensate three" policy applicable?
Legal experts also remind that not all products that have problems are subject to the "refund one and compensate three" policy. If there are only general product quality defects that do not prove fraud on the part of the operator, the consumer's claim of "refund one and compensate three" may not be supported. In other words, there is a problem with the product and fraud on the part of the operator are not the same thing.
Is the merchant's claim of "10 for every fake one" a real promise or a traffic-draining routine?
Reporters investigated and found that in recent years, on online shopping platforms, it is not uncommon for merchants to make promises of “10 for every fake product”. Most of these commitments are concentrated in jewelry, jade, clothing and other commodities. A cinnabar bracelet, with the main picture saying "National Inspection Certificate, Guaranteed Authenticity, Pay 10% for Fake", has sold over 20,000 online. A ring priced at tens of yuan, its promotional page declares "Supports testing, 10% for fakes" and "Golden inside and out"; there is also a silk product that claims that the filler and fabric are natural fibers, and also reads "Guaranteed Authentic, 10% for fakes". The sales of these products are very impressive. The promise of "10 for every fake one" has become the main selling point of merchants.
Can these promises be truly fulfilled? In a recently concluded consumer fraud lawsuit, the judge of the Beijing Internet Court gave a clear answer.
Does the promise of "10 for every fake" marked on the merchant's sales page count?
Recently, consumer Mr. Liu spent nearly 2,000 yuan online to purchase an auto accessory. The merchant clearly marked on the sales page "Original factory package, 10% compensation for fake products". After the product arrives, the outer packaging is also printed with an "anti-counterfeiting QR code". To be cautious, Mr. Liu scanned the QR code, but did not find the corresponding anti-counterfeiting information. It only showed that the QR code was invalid.
Jiang Xiao, a judge at the filing court of the Beijing Internet Court: After scanning the code, it was found that it was a QR code from an unknown source. At the same time, the consumer purchased genuine products of the brand separately. After comparison, it was found that there were many differences such as steel seal marks between the products involved and the genuine products.
This is a comparison picture provided by Mr. Liu between the auto parts he purchased and genuine products. It can be seen that there are certain differences in the triangular stamps and letter marks in the three pictures. Mr. Liu believed that he had bought fake goods, so he sued the merchant to the court, demanding compensation according to the "10 for one fake" promised on the details page.
Jiang Xiao: During the trial of this case, the merchant failed to provide evidence on the supply channels of genuine products. On the other hand, during the court hearing, no reasonable explanation could be given for the discrepancies raised by the evidence provided by consumers, so we finally determined that the operators did sell counterfeit goods.
The court held that the promise made by the merchant on the sales page to "compensate for ten for a fake" was a transaction commitment made explicitly to consumers during the sales process.
Jiang Xiao: As a unilateral breach of contract commitment made by an operator, although it is higher than the compensation standard stipulated by our law, as long as the content is legal and valid, it should be performed in accordance with the contract.
Consumer rights protection: keep evidence and keep boundaries
So, what should consumers do once they buy fake goods and find that the goods are not as advertised? The judge reminded that when encountering consumer disputes, evidence must be preserved in a timely manner. For example, you need to keep some basic receipts for purchasing goods, live broadcast room videos, chat records, etc. You can complain to the consumer association where the merchant is located, or you can complain to the market supervision department where the merchant is located.
In addition, you can also rely on the power of judicial appraisal to identify whether the product meets the corresponding standards or whether there is false propaganda, so as to determine and protect your rights. Legal experts also reminded that consumers must grasp reasonable boundaries when safeguarding their rights according to law. The punitive damages system is to protect normal life consumption needs. If it is a malicious claim through subcontracting, subcontracting, tampering with consumer information, etc., the court will not support it.
There are many kinds of "overlord clauses" in catering. What are the hidden tricks?
During the holidays, many consumers have encountered various catering conditions: minimum consumption is set for private rooms, service fees are added out of thin air when checking out without being notified in advance, merchants only allow the purchase of set meals during holidays, etc. When encountering these problems, many consumers cannot tell which charges are in compliance with regulations and which charges can be rejected directly. They do not know how to protect their rights when encountering disputes.
According to experts, catering implements market-regulated prices, and merchants enjoy independent pricing rights, but this right is based on clearly marked prices and honest operations.
Chen Yinjiang, research expert on consumer rights protection law: If you go to a restaurant to consume, first of all, the restaurant must ensure that it provides food that meets food safety standards. In addition, services with clearly marked prices should be provided so that consumers can fully understand the price of food before making a choice. If there is price deception, or there is behavior of providing inferior food, or it does not meet food safety standards, and the rights and interests of consumers are harmed, consumers can safeguard their rights according to law.
Which clauses are invalid and can be rejected directly?
Setting minimum consumption in private rooms: It is expressly prohibited by law. Regardless of the terms such as "private room fees, must-order dishes" or any other name, setting a minimum consumption in disguised form is invalid.
It is prohibited to bring your own alcohol, which is suspected of compulsory consumption and should not be supported. Charging corkage fees is unreasonable and consumers can refuse to pay.
Notify the service fee until checkout: The service fee must be clearly announced in advance. If the service fee is added temporarily at checkout and is not notified in advance, you have the right to refuse payment.
It is mandatory to only purchase set meals during holidays, and single orders are not allowed. This infringes on the right to choose independently and is a disguised form of setting a minimum consumption.
Group buying packages are prohibited on holidays and have limited time periods at will. If the restrictions are not clearly marked in advance on the sales page, the merchant cannot unilaterally restrict use.
The only compliance situation: service fees and private room usage fees must be clearly and clearly informed before booking, and can only be charged with the voluntary consent of the consumer.
What should you do if you encounter hidden consumption in catering?
Experts emphasize that price adjustments caused by reasonable cost increases during holidays are allowed by law. Consumers need to know the boundaries of market-regulated prices and distinguish between legal pre-holiday price adjustments and illegal rip-offs and price gouging. If you really encounter the above problems, how should you protect your rights?
Experts remind you to be wary of catering overlord clauses when dining out in private rooms. Minimum consumption in private rooms, corkage fees, and service charges not notified in advance can all be refused. Ask about the fees before booking, keep the receipt and recording, and call 12315 to protect your rights if there is any infringement.
Chen Yinjiang: If the obligation to inform is not fulfilled, the consumer’s right to know is not protected. This behavior is a behavior that damages the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Strictly speaking, it is an illegal act, and consumers can of course refuse to pay. If there is no way to make the payment at the time, as long as you keep the payment record and take photos and videos, you can still defend your rights afterwards.
List of evidence: complete menu photos, online group purchase screenshots, store holiday price adjustment announcement, ordering recording, checkout, payment voucher.
Complaint channel: 12315. Reporting keywords can be distinguished: clear price violations, price fraud, and price gouging.
In addition, some catering businesses have compressed the rules on consumption restrictions and additional charges into inconspicuous fine print, trying to bind consumers with format clauses. The law does not prohibit merchants from charging service fees and setting restrictions on the use of group purchases, but the prerequisite is that they must be notified in advance in a conspicuous manner. Hidden fine print does not mean consumers are informed. Overlord clauses that are not fully disclosed will not be recognized by the law.
Experts suggest that for charging items that are not clearly notified, you should directly refuse to pay the fee. If the merchant forcibly charges the fee, you can make a note on the bill saying "I have objections to the XX fee and reserve the right to complain", and pay first and keep the voucher.
When encountering consumer disputes, remember the five ways to protect your rights
Experts remind that there are five ways for consumers to safeguard their rights under the law.
The first is to negotiate a settlement with the operator.
The second is to request mediation from the Consumers Association where the operator is located.
The third option is to file a complaint with the administrative regulatory department where the operator is located. For example, call the market supervision complaint and reporting hotline 12315 and the citizen hotline 12345.
The fourth is to submit the case to an arbitration institution for arbitration.
The fifth method is to file a lawsuit with the People's Court. No matter which rights protection method you choose, you must keep relevant evidence.
