On 15 october 2024, the e-commerce research centre published its first national data report on complaints from businesses - the 2024 q3 china electric power platform (qem) complaints data report - based on data on nearly 3,000 complaints from vendors from 14 electric power companies nationwide received in the third quarter of the year by the network consumer dispute mediation platform “electron vs. Bo”. The report covered the areas of integrated electricians, live broadcasters, b2b and cross-border electricians, and published data on complaints from electric power platform vendors and 10 typical cases。
According to the “electron vs. Treasure” court case, we have selected 10 typical cases of complaints involving shop-babys, fast hands, tremors, skycats, idle fish, poaching, micro-mail video number, 1688, picker, little red book. Issues included the seizure of bonds, the freezing of money, arbitrary refunds, excessive consumer protection, malicious fines, etc。
After the store baby paid off, the merchant felt deceived and demanded a refund of $1880
On 31 july, ms. Tianjin city filed a complaint with the “electoral vs. Bo” that it had added, at 11 a. M. On 19 january 2021, a letter (now deleted), in the name of the shop's baby, which had been misled by its exaggerated propaganda products and by a step-by-step, steady and uncompensated offer to open its own internet shop, thereby making a transfer totalling $1880。
Following the payment of the woman's money, the customer service allowed her to study her own video course, with a teacher to teach and ask if she did not understand. Ms. Yu tried to hang the product at the treasure shop and then step by step to take pictures of the product. Ms. Yu felt uncomfortable and went to question the store baby and then manually processed the refund, which was always ignored on various pretexts. Her only claim is to return $1880 for the baby。
Fast-track merchants claim $4. 4 million has been frozen by the platform for an indefinite period of time, demanding the restoration of the account's cash collection function
On 2 august, mr. Liu, a businessman in heilongjiang province, filed a complaint with the “electro-telegraph vs. Bao”, claiming that he operated a shop on the express hand platform and received on 16 july the platform's “notice of penalties for endangering consumer rights and interests and a fine of $500,000” (which had been withdrawn) and that the platform had frozen the store for an indefinite period of time, and that mr. Liu had contacted the official staff for no action。
Mr. Liu stated that, firstly, if there was any action by the shop that endangered the rights of the consumer, he undertook to support the consumer refunds unconditionally; secondly, if there was any irregularity on his part, he supported the handing over of the platform to the relevant authorities for verification, but that it was not possible to freeze the store's money for an indefinite period of time, which was a serious monarchy clause, and that his staff had expressly asked mr. Liu to re-enter the shop and to provide protection. In response, mr. Liu strongly protested that he had requested that the account be restored to its normal cash-flow function and that there should be no time limit for freezing commercial money。
Why would a "dive" platform agree to "refund only"? Response: business feedback orders have exceeded the filing deadline
On 4 august, mr. Lee, a female contractor in the autonomous region of inner mongolia (name of the shivering shop: sunshine) complained to the “electron vs. Treasure” that on 9 march 2024 he had paid the buyer only a direct refund in the shivering, that the platform's guest service had helped to submit it, and that the system had made an automatic second refund without even providing a photograph of the alleged quality of the commodity. According to mr. Lee, the buyer merely indicated that the seller had been asked what to do and that he had not been able to contact the buyer until the seller had responded。
Mr. Lee said it's too much to be a businessman, that there's a problem of returning the goods, that there's compensation, but the platform can't just give it to the buyer. Mr. Lee requested that only refunds be returned。
Upon receipt of the above user complaint, we refer the complaint to the relevant person on the platform. The person concerned replied: "hello, your feedback order has exceeded the time limit for filing a complaint, and the platform's deadline for filing a complaint is seven natural days before the platform initiates a refund. Please follow the platform's notification in a timely manner. Thank you for your understanding and support。
Businesses are being “refunded only” and skycats are deducting store bonds for no reason
On 8 august, mr. Yang, a bowling cup dealer in zhejiang province, complained to “electron vs. Treasure” that a consumer had purchased a pure titanium cup worth $469 on 12 may 24 at his skycat store, where he applied for refunds for leaking water. Mr. Yang argued that in such a case, under the platform's rules, it would not be possible to refund the goods, and that the non-human factor could repair or exchange the goods, resulting in the platform opening the way to consumers。
Mr. Yang indicated that the consumer sent the product back to them, received it and tested it without leaking, and also provided evidence to the platform, where mr. Yang was negotiated for a discount. Mr. Yang stated that he could not re-sell the goods once they had been used, and promised to subsidize the consumer for $60, resulting in a direct withholding of $400 from mr. Yang's shop and the cost of shipping the consumer back at $8. 2. Mr. Yang stated that the numerous complaints were invalid and that he wished to recover the loss of $408. 2 through the electric appeal。
The time fish seller claims to have gone through an unreasonable "test" payment
On 26 august, mr. Liu of guangdong province filed a complaint with the “electoral vs. Bao” alleging that he had suffered an unreasonable “testing treasure” decision on 26 august 2024 at the spare fish second-hand electric power platform, in violation of his interests. Mr. Liu's claim was that the platform should impose severe penalties on the inspection commissioner and refund the cost of the inspection. Mr. Liu claimed that he had two watches, each selling, and each time faced a hand-to-hand situation, which cost a lot of postage, while the platform did not listen. Mr. Liu stated that his watch was authentic, although it met the criteria of the process, and that the platform also stated that he was not on board。
Mr. Liu called to respond to the complaint, stating that he had not told the buyer of the apparent damage. Mr. Liu stated that the second-hand merchandise was properly worn and must have been worn, or what was the 1. 8 discount on the real watch? The buyer has also indicated that the goods will be received in good faith and that it is now the buyer's problem to turn back, and the idle fish platform has decided, for no reason whatsoever, that there must be a major problem. According to mr. Liu, the same was true of the second watch, where the buyer killed him, failed to confirm the order for various reasons, then lured him into confirming the payment of the inspection, after which he said that the buyer would pay the cost of the inspection, and asked mr. Liu to give him a further fee, which was deducted from the platform. Mr. Liu and the platform theory, the platform's abdication of responsibility, saying that it was the seller and the buyer, who ignored it and called on the state to ban these irresponsible platforms。
After the sale, the buyer failed to provide feedback
On 10 september, mr. Chen, a car supplier on the poaching platform, complained to the “electricity vs. Treasure” that on 10 september 2024 he had undergone an unreasonable “refund only” decision on the poaching power platform that the buyer, after receiving the goods, would apply for a “refund only” without feedback of any post-sale information to the merchant's customers (without any record of conversations with the merchant), without the merchant's consent and without the knowledge of the buyer。
Mr. Chen considered this to be an infringement of the seller's interests and resulted in the loss of business money. Mr. Chen's claim is that the buyer return the goods and ensure that the products are not sold on a secondary basis or that the amount actually sold is paid to the seller. The platform is no longer permitted to refund only for any unreasonable reason and may support the refund if the customer is not satisfied with the product。
Less than 10 percent of the refunds are required by the micro-mail video to be fully refunded
On 18 september, mr. Chiang, a farmer of food products on the twitter video, complained to the “electron vs. Bao” that the twitter platform had forced only a refund. Mr. Jiang stated that, because of the fresh fruit sold, transport was inevitable, that the buyer had received only a small portion of the goods found to have been damaged, and that mr. Jiang had been trying to communicate with a view to compensating the corresponding proportion of the money, but that the platform had directly imposed a full refund and had informed the customer that the goods did not need to be returned。
According to mr. Jiang, there had also been a number of previous orders in which platforms had forced full refunds, resulting in additional losses to businesses. Mr. Chiang contacted the platform, which kept saying sorry things to them. According to mr. Chiang, the buyer received four bad results, with less than 10 per cent of the refunds, and was able to make a direct full refund, which was extremely chilling。
The “1688” vendor requests that the platform verify the condition of the goods and, if the secondary sale is affected, reject the buyer's request for return
On 23 september, mr. Lok, a businessman on platform 1688 (name of business: the city of iu became e-commerce ltd.), filed a complaint with “electron vs. Treasure” alleging that the buyer had ordered large quantities of goods at his shop but had not finished selling them, and then filed a refund of the goods and complained about mr. Lo's shop. The post-platform passenger service intervened and initially contacted mr. Lo on the basis of the buyer's voucher phone, stating that the buyer's application for a return would be rejected, and later that the buyer's claim that the product had a hairy side was a quality issue。
According to mr. Kaji, the buyer returned the goods to the buyer without the agreement of the shop. The buyer returned the goods because they were perishable and the buyer returned the goods without any protection, resulting in damage to the goods in transit and a failure to sell the goods on a secondary basis。
The platform's second call claimed that the secondary sales were affected by the damage caused by the corresponding logistics verification, that the buyer's request for a refund would be rejected and the money paid to the seller, but that the next day it was suddenly changed and that the courier was contacted to say that the goods were good and to support the buyer's refund. Mr. Kaji asked the platform to verify the condition of the goods and, if the damage affected the second sale, to reject the buyer's request to return the goods instead of turning over the account tomorrow。
When the pick-up vendor was at full value, it became clear that the security business was inoperable and that the deposit could not be returned
On 25 september, mr. Wu, zhejiang province (seller's name: real-time and honest dealer), filed a complaint with the power vs. Treasure, alleging that on 15 september 2024, he had applied to be a seller on the zhejiang platform, where a deposit of $100 had been requested after the application for a data identification card had been completed. Mr. Wu found that the platform's preservation business was unusable and that it could not be returned when he applied for the return of the deposit. The platform indicated that there was a need to contact manual or operator applications, but the platform did not have a passenger service route to contact the operator, and mr. Wu was unable to contact the platform's passenger service, which was filled with no comment。
Mr. Wu stated that the platform had failed to act and had requested the platform's party to release his vendor bond and return the bond road. Furthermore, the platform is better managed, and if business is not allowed, there will be no filling entrance。
The back office of little red didn't update logistics in time for the merchants to be sentenced to $29
On 25 september, mr. Wang, a fresh and fresh food shop in shandong province (named the little red book shop: official flag shop of sing zingda), complained to the “electron vs. Bo” that he had been unfairly fined on the little red book platform and that two orders had been placed for the same person. On 14 september, at 1555:19, after mr. Wang's shop sent out and updated its express delivery number on the basis of the user's sub-message, the user entered the line at 9-1416:29 to request a change of address. The shop was modified to the user's request and the latest logistics unit was re-published at full speed。
Mr. Wang stated that he had verified that the delivery had actually been signed by him at 09-1518:57, and that mr. Wang was unable to accept the award and the compensation totalling $29. Mr. Wang's complaint to the platform, which was stated but rejected, was not irregular and required the lifting of the penalty and the return of $29。
Considerable progress has also been made in the area of consumer protection, legislation, etc., which has been recognized by the relevant ministries and associations. For example, in 2020, attended the national municipal oversight symposium on the creation of unsold network platforms by internet enterprises, held in kyoto, where the first chinese social utility compliance study was published; in 2017, which was commissioned by the chamber of commerce and industry of zhejiang province and the zhejiang province commission for protection of consumers' rights and interests in cross-border network acquisitions; in 2016, which was commissioned by the national directorate of commerce and industry and the bureau of zhejiang province of commerce and industry to undertake the research project “national compliance review of network trading platforms”; and in 2016, which was directed by the general directorate of commerce and industry, the china consumers' association, at a symposium on the promotion of consumers in electric development guidance network consumption, organized with the chinese consumers' journal, which published the guide to consumers' consumers consumers' consumption report and acquisition in 2016。
In 2013, he was invited to a seminar on the protection of consumer rights and interests in the payment industry, organized by the financial consumer protection authority of the people's bank of china, among others, and to make a thematic report; to launch the 2010 china network sales incomplete survey; and to publish the first china network distribution survey report, the 2010 china network distribution survey, which promoted joint action by the general directorate of commerce and industry, the ministry of public security, the ministry of industry and information technology, the national internet information office, the people's bank of china, the china bank of china and the china bank for banking and supervision。
On 1 august, the third-party “refund-only” channel for third parties of the first electric dealer in the country whose online consumer dispute mediation platform, “electron vs. Bo”, was opened。
On 24 september, the "electron vs. Treasure" of the flagship consumer dispute mediation platform launched a special investigation operation to "refuse false propaganda and cleanse live space". This is also known to be the fourth investigation launched this year, cumulatively in recent years, following the special investigations of the electrician platform `refund only', `safeguarding the consumption of the mid-autumn national day focus on cyber-food safety' and `friendly tourist travel'。
