In order to reassure consumers when they file, the sellers of electric power platforms sometimes give them “freight insurance” and when they return the goods, insurance companies can pay for them. In recent days, women brand founders have publicly stated that many businesses are “compulsoryly required to grant freight insurance” and that the recent “6. 18” push has made the introduction of freight insurance a mandatory requirement for business participation, placing a significant burden on commercial operations. At the same time, there has also been a suspected fraud by occupational retorts who specialize in the purchase of goods with freight risk, return the goods directly upon arrival and earn the difference between the cost of freight insurance and the actual cost of delivery. The purpose of “freight risk” is to enhance consumer shopping experience, and how can “freight risk” be avoided and even exploited
A recent letter from the founder of a female brand stated that the purpose of the refund was to mitigate freight disputes arising from the re-purchase of the network and to enhance consumer shopping experience. However, with increased competition, the platform has gradually made retrofitting freight cost insurance mandatory in order to attract consumers and has significantly increased the business pressure. A number of “sweety” behaviour that earns a difference between the cost of freight insurance and the actual cost of delivery increase the burden on the enterprise。
Hen shenzhen's electrician, mr. Xu, told journalists that buying freight insurance for consumers would indeed help sales, and that freight insurance prices would generally be based on large data, with a low rate of return for some items and less than $1 for freight, but a high premium for those items that are regularly returned, on average, at around $3。
Mr. Xu said: “the higher the return rate, the higher the cost of freight insurance, for example, the 10 per cent i return now, the normal potential cost of freight per item is approximately 30 to 40 cent, which, if i were to return more than 10 per cent, or 30 per cent, could increase to 4 or 5 cent. Now it's calculated on the basis of your return volume every day, the volume of the shipment per day, and then he splits it, and in general he pays for it, and the more you return the goods, the higher the freight risk. It's really hard for an electrician not to open a freight insurance policy."
Some of the electrical platforms require vendors to purchase freight insurance in order to participate in promotional activities. In mr. Xu's view, there is a risk of a disguised imposition of freight charges, but the merchants would not be able to sell if they did not participate in events such as “6/18” and “two-xie”. This leaves some vendors with a higher rate of return with a dilemma, especially when they encounter specialized “occupational retreaters”, who not only fail to sell the goods but also incur the cost of freight insurance。
Mr. Xu said: “this thing is a two-way choice, and it cannot be said that it has to be imposed, and it is open if it wants to, and you do not want to. This platform has to be very expensive. It has to be paid back
The network of journalists found that there were even notes that taught people how to “fellow” freight, such as clicking on a return, which would pay the user $10, but to find a familiar courier company to negotiate the price, which might cost only $5, which would make a difference. One merchant stated: “these packages of freight insurance were not even unopened, and a single number was re-posted, clearly describing the freight insurance of the merchant. He could work with couriers, such as this small parcel, which could have been given $3, but the freight risk could have been resupplyed to him for $8, which would have resulted in a difference of $5. The platform should really hit these people, and it should have a policy to blacklist them.”
Even one electrician claimed that a courier offered to work with him to earn the difference in freight insurance. The electrician said, “today, the courier gave me an idea to cut wool, to buy a product with freight insurance and to return it when it was received. Because the courier offered me a price of $5. 5 up to three kilograms, and then freight insurance, depending on the city, could be recovered at $12, which would make $6. 5 a unit, which is feasible but not ethical.”
As early as 2015, the first case of “internet insurance” fraud in the country was handed down in the wu xing district people's court of lake city, zhejiang province. The defendant, who was insured through false purchases and applied for freight insurance, had fraudulently paid over $200,000 and was eventually sentenced to six years and six months in prison for insurance fraud and fined。
Under-secretary-general song jingjun of the china insurance institute of the beijing university of commerce and industry stated that the law of the people's republic of china on insurance clearly stipulates that insurance contracts are entered into on a voluntary basis, except in cases where insurance is required by law and administrative regulations. While it is suspected that it would be unlawful for the platform to impose insurance on a merchant, it is not illegal for the platform to use its position to set a threshold on the condition of participation。
“it is true that the insurance companies did not force the merchants to buy insurance, it was indeed an agreement between the merchants and the platform. Although this appears to the business community to be the strength of the platform, it is ultimately the result of consultations between the platform and the business community.”
With respect to the large number of “freight-risk wool” acts on the network, the song jing jun considered that, in addition to the strengthening of the electric power platform, insurance companies could address the root causes of the problem by changing the way payments are made。
“in practice, there may be two ways for consumers to return goods, the first being the platform, including the appointment of a courier company by the insurance company, and the free choice of the consumer for the services of the courier company. Thus, in the case of free choice of consumers, there may be a situation of wool, which is ultimately a mismatch between the express offer and the insurance company's pricing. On this issue, we can effectively avoid this situation by purchasing third-party services centrally by insurance companies, or by strengthening the regulation of large-scale refunds by electric platforms.”
