Perspective | "Double Eleven" Online Shopping Legal Guide
Published:
2024-10-31
With the continuous advancement and popularization of internet technology, online shopping has become an indispensable part of people's daily lives. For shopping festivals like "Double Eleven" and "Double Twelve" launched by e-commerce platforms, everyone eagerly anticipates them, preparing to return "loaded with goods." During these events, merchants introduce various marketing strategies such as "pre-sale," "discounts," and "group buying," making the already bustling online market even more lively. However, behind this prosperity, the legal risks of online shopping have also increased. This article takes the "Double Eleven" shopping festival as an example to explore the various legal issues that may arise during the online shopping process. These issues include but are not limited to consumer rights protection, product quality assurance, and after-sales service guarantees. By systematically sorting out these legal risks, this article aims to provide a legal guide for consumers, helping them to enjoy the convenience of online shopping while more rationally avoiding potential legal risks.
Introduction
With the continuous advancement and popularization of internet technology, online shopping has become an indispensable part of people's daily lives. For shopping festivals launched by e-commerce platforms such as "Double Eleven" and "Double Twelve", everyone is eagerly looking forward to it, preparing to return with a full load. During the event, merchants introduce various marketing strategies such as "pre-sale", "full reduction", and "group buying", making the already hot online market even more lively. However, behind this prosperity, the legal risks of online shopping have also increased.
This article takes the "Double Eleven" shopping festival as an example to explore various legal issues that may arise during the online shopping process. These issues include but are not limited to consumer rights protection, product quality assurance, and after-sales service guarantee. By systematically sorting out these legal risks, we provide a legal guide for consumers, helping them to enjoy the convenience of online shopping while more rationally avoiding potential legal risks.
1. Merchants engaging in price fraud, consumers have the right to demand compensation from merchants.
During the "Double Eleven" period, some merchants mislead consumers into placing orders by fabricating original prices and fictitious discounts. According to the "Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China" and other relevant legal provisions, misleading consumers by fabricating original prices and reasons for discounts may be deemed as price fraud. When merchants intentionally provide false information or conceal the truth during the sales process, leading consumers to make erroneous decisions, it can be recognized as fraudulent behavior.
If consumers discover that merchants have engaged in price fraud, they can demand a refund of the product price and receive three times the amount of the product price as compensation. The legal basis is Article 55 of the "Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China": "If the operator provides goods or services with fraudulent behavior, they shall, according to the consumer's request, increase compensation for the losses suffered, and the amount of increased compensation shall be three times the price of the goods purchased or the fees for the services received; if the amount of increased compensation is less than five hundred yuan, it shall be five hundred yuan. If there are other legal provisions, they shall be followed..."
When consumers suffer price fraud and sue the merchant in court, the court will determine whether the merchant constitutes price fraud based on evidence. If the merchant cannot provide real transaction records to prove the original price, or if the marked original price does not match the actual transaction price, the court may recognize the price fraud as established; however, if the consumer also has responsibility for knowing or should have known and participated in the price fraud, the court will not support the consumer's compensation request.
For example, in case (2019) Yue Min Shen 5734, the court found that the consumer did not make an erroneous representation due to price fraud, thus not supporting their compensation request. In case (2018) Yue 03 Min Zhong 21543, the court found that the merchant did not provide the original price as required, constituting price fraud, but the consumer was already aware of the fictitious price situation, so their claim was not established. In case (2018) Jing 03 Min Zhong 9032, the court found that the marked strikethrough price on the sales page of the involved product was higher than the lowest price in the seven days prior to this promotional activity and was not marked during the discount period. The product price is the most important consideration for consumers when conducting product transactions, especially during promotional activities, where consumers pay even more attention to price. The original price not only shows the discount itself but also conveys information about the discount range, and falsely marking the original price is enough to lead consumers to have a misunderstanding of the discount range and generate a willingness to purchase. Even in the online shopping environment, where consumers can check past transaction records and compare prices of similar products, this does not reduce the seller's legal obligation to mark true information. Therefore, the merchant's behavior is deemed to constitute price fraud. It can be seen that although consumers can verify prices by checking transaction records and price comparisons, this does not relieve sellers of their legal obligation to mark true information.
In summary, when consumers purchase products through e-commerce during promotional activities such as "Double Eleven", they need to pay attention to whether merchants engage in price fraud by fabricating original prices, raising prices before lowering them, etc. Once price fraud is discovered, they can protect their legal rights through legal channels. At the same time, the court will comprehensively consider various factors when hearing related cases, including the consumer's intent, the authenticity of transaction records, and the merchant's burden of proof, to make a judgment.
2. In the pre-sale model, the merchant's "non-refundable deposit" provision does not violate laws and regulations.
The pre-sale model is one of the promotional models in "Double Eleven", commonly seen before the official start of "Double Eleven". Generally, before "Double Eleven", merchants set a certain percentage of pre-sale deposits based on the product price and specify the time and deadline for paying the balance, allowing consumers to pay the pre-sale deposit in advance. After the "Double Eleven" event officially starts, consumers must pay the balance within the specified period. If consumers do not pay the balance within the specified period after paying the deposit, the merchant will deduct the deposit paid by the consumer and will not refund it.
The purpose of this model is to "lock in orders" before the event starts to increase sales; essentially, it is a deposit contract between the merchant and the consumer. When consumers pay the deposit, they are actually entering into a reservation contract with the merchant. According to the relevant provisions of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China", a reservation contract refers to an agreement between the parties to conclude a contract within a certain period in the future. The deposit has a guarantee nature; if the consumer does not pay the balance, they may lose the deposit; if the merchant fails to provide the goods as agreed, they should return the deposit in double.
Given that the consumer has not paid the balance and the merchant has clearly informed the nature of the deposit, the merchant has the right not to refund the deposit when the consumer refuses to pay the balance. Therefore, consumers should carefully read the terms set by the merchant before paying the deposit, which is an important step to protect their right to know. Additionally, consumers should also pay attention to the specifications, quantity, and other information of the ordered product before paying the deposit to avoid ordering errors. Furthermore, when paying the balance, consumers have the right to confirm product information. The "E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China" requires merchants to provide detailed information about the goods or services to consumers. If the merchant mislabels the price or provides incorrect product information (not constituting major misunderstandings or other special circumstances) at the time of paying the balance, consumers can request the merchant to provide the goods or services as agreed.
In summary, the merchant's provision of "non-refundable deposit" is legal and valid as long as it clearly informs consumers and obtains their consent, and does not violate relevant laws and regulations on consumer rights protection. However, most products have a seven-day no-reason return policy. If consumers change their minds after paying the deposit, they can still apply for a seven-day no-reason return after paying the balance, choosing "refund only" before the merchant ships, and "return and refund" after shipping. In this way, it is possible to achieve the effect of returning both the deposit and the balance. However, not all products are subject to the seven-day no-reason return policy; for customized non-standard products, perishable goods, and other specific products, there is no room for applying the seven-day no-reason return policy. Therefore, this also reminds consumers to think carefully before paying the deposit to avoid deposit losses due to impulsive consumption.
3. If consumers purchase counterfeit and inferior products, they have the right to demand compensation from merchants.
When consumers purchase counterfeit and inferior products during "Double Eleven", according to the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China", the "Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China", the "Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China", and other relevant legal provisions, consumers have the right to terminate the contract and demand a refund from the operator. If the product violates relevant safety standards, consumers can request additional punitive damages, with the compensation amount being three times the price of the goods or services.
If the product purchased by the consumer online is food that does not meet food safety standards, punitive damages can be determined at ten times the price or three times the loss. However, if the consumer's behavior shows an intention to speculate for profit or there is malicious compensation, the court may not support their request for high punitive damages (the controversy over professional counterfeiters always exists).
In addition, whether the consumer's request for compensation from the merchant can be supported needs to be combined with the authenticity, legality, and relevance of the evidence. For example, in case number (2023) Yue 0783 Minchu 4903, the consumer failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the purchased product involved fraudulent behavior, thus the request for triple compensation was not supported. However, when the product is indeed a counterfeit or inferior product, and the seller has not fulfilled their duty of examination, the court will support the consumer's request for a return and tenfold compensation. For example, in case number (2024) Hu 0115 Minchu 16381, the court found that the products sold by the merchant were counterfeit and inferior, thus supporting the consumer's lawsuit for compensation.
Therefore, when consumers claim compensation from merchants for purchasing counterfeit or inferior products, they need to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the claimed counterfeit or inferior goods indeed exist and that the merchant has engaged in fraudulent behavior. In addition, consumers should pay attention to retaining shopping records and communication evidence with the merchant, as well as relevant evidence, to actively protect their legal rights.
4. Lost packages may result in liability for multiple parties.
Due to the surge in order volume during the "Double Eleven" shopping festival, the number of express packages has also increased significantly, leading to a rise in lost packages.
According to Article 832 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the carrier is liable for compensation for damage or loss of goods during transportation. However, if the carrier proves that the damage or loss of goods is due to force majeure, the natural nature of the goods, reasonable wear and tear, or the fault of the consignor or consignee, they are not liable for compensation. Additionally, Article 52, Paragraph 2 of the E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China states: "Express logistics service providers providing express logistics services for e-commerce must comply with laws and administrative regulations and must meet the promised service specifications and time limits. When delivering goods, express logistics service providers should remind the consignee to check in person; if delivered to someone else, it should be with the consignee's consent." From this provision, it can be seen that express companies have two ways to deliver packages: one is to deliver to the consignee and remind them to check in person; the other is to deliver to someone else with the consignee's consent.
As mentioned above, in most cases, express companies should bear the liability for compensation for losses caused by their failure to ensure the safe delivery of packages. Express companies have a duty to safeguard the packages they deliver, and if a package is lost due to their fault, they are obligated to compensate the buyer for economic losses. However, if the courier delivers the package to someone else with the consignee's consent or leaves after delivering the package to a designated location without confirming that the package has been safely delivered, the recipient may also bear some responsibility.
Additionally, for express packages that have been insured, compensation liability is usually determined according to the insurance rules; for packages that are not insured, compensation liability is handled according to civil law provisions. If consumers do not choose to insure, they may bear part of the loss themselves.
When encountering a lost package situation, consumers need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the value of the lost items and the circumstances of the loss. If the evidence is insufficient, they may bear the adverse consequences of being unable to provide proof. Even if consumers submit proof of the price, if they cannot prove the value of the items in the package, they will also bear corresponding adverse consequences.
In summary, the responsibility for lost packages in online shopping is usually borne by the express company, but the specific distribution of responsibility needs to consider multiple factors such as whether there is insurance, the cooperation of the recipient, and the evidence provided by the consumer.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
