部分“仅退款”变“0元购”成商家噩梦 专家建议
近期，部分电商平台上的消费者滥用“仅退款”规则进行“0元购”的现象引起了广泛关注。商家表示，这一现象不仅导致他们损失了商品和运费，还影响了正常的商业秩序。
某平台商家刘某反映，他今年5月新开张的网店已遭遇多次“仅退款”。他认为，平台推出“仅退款”规则的本意是好的，但如果遇上滥用“仅退款”进行“0元购”的消费者，就是商家的噩梦。
此类事件并非偶然出现。连日来，与“仅退款”有关的话题频频冲上热搜，引发人们对“仅退款”规则的讨论。《法治日报》记者了解到，“仅退款”规则是指消费者在平台上买到“严重劣质、货不对板”的商品，或者遭遇卖家在未经买家允许的情况下延迟发货、强制发货等情形，平台通过多项指标进行综合评估后，支持消费者快速退货退款或仅退款不退货。然而一些人滥用该规则进行“0元购”，使得“仅退款”规则逐渐变味，成为“薅羊毛”的代名词。
受访专家认为，当“仅退款”成为电商平台标配时，一些人滥用规则恶意退款的行为破坏了规则的正常运行，从而引发买卖双方的博弈，最终容易造成买卖两方“双输”的局面。平台应当承担治理责任，不断优化并完善“仅退款”规则，合理区分商品品类和具体适用情形，提升消费体验。同时，建立商家申诉处理机制，充分吸收商家和消费者意见，平衡双方利益。
恶意申请仅退款令商家损失惨重。有商家发视频称，某顾客在其网店里购买了4件商品，等商品送达后，该顾客拒收1件，取走了另外3件，却成功申请了全额“仅退款”，总金额为1800余元。商家向平台申诉未果，只得报警处理。
此外，一女装商家店铺营业额达1000万元左右，但扣掉“仅退款”数额350万元、“退货退款”数量380万元，刨除各项成本开支后，该店铺亏损约60万元。
某美妆品牌负责人徐某近期也被恶意“仅退款”弄得焦头烂额。原来，一名消费者在其开设的所有平台品牌店铺把某款产品都买了个遍，然后通过未经证实的过敏照片全部申请“仅退款”。徐某无奈地说，“商家对消费者过敏凭证提出异议，申请平台介入时，品牌售后处理的客服分会下滑，分数过低就无法与达人进行合作，所以一般只能自认倒霉。”
为了维护正常的商业秩序，平台需要进一步完善“仅退款”规则，建立更加合理的申诉机制，平衡商家和消费者的利益，避免“仅退款”规则成为不法分子牟利的工具。同时，商家也应该提高产品质量和服务水平，减少不必要的退款纠纷。
英语如下：
News Title: “Only Refunds Become 0-Cost Shopping: How to Crack the Business Horror?”
Keywords: Only Refunds, Business Horror, Rule Optimization
News Content:
Partial “Only Refunds” Transformed into “0-Cost Shopping” Become a Nightmare for Businesses, Experts Suggest
Recently, the phenomenon of consumers on some e-commerce platforms abusing the “only refunds” rule to engage in “0-cost shopping” has attracted widespread attention. Businesses report that this practice not only leads to losses of goods and shipping fees but also disrupts the normal commercial order.
Mr. Liu, a business owner on a certain platform, complained that his newly opened online store has been repeatedly targeted by “only refunds” since May this year. He believes that the intention behind the platform’s introduction of the “only refunds” rule is commendable, but when it comes to consumers abusing the rule to engage in “0-cost shopping,” it becomes a nightmare for businesses.
Such incidents are not uncommon. Over the past few days, topics related to “only refunds” have frequently topped the trending list, sparking discussions about the “only refunds” rule. A reporter from the Legal Daily learned that the “only refunds” rule refers to a situation where consumers purchase “severely defective or not as described” goods on the platform, or if they encounter sellers delaying or forcing the shipment without the buyer’s permission, the platform supports consumers in returning goods and requesting a refund or a refund without returning the goods based on multiple indicators after a comprehensive assessment. However, some individuals are abusing the rule to engage in “0-cost shopping,” turning the “only refunds” rule into something different, a term for “harvesting wool.”
Experts interviewed believe that when “only refunds” become a standard feature on e-commerce platforms, the malicious use of rules for refunds by some individuals disrupts the normal operation of the rules, leading to a game of strategy between buyers and sellers, which ultimately often results in a “double loss” situation for both parties. Platforms should take responsibility for governance, continuously optimize and improve the “only refunds” rule, and make reasonable distinctions between product categories and specific applicability scenarios to enhance consumer experiences. At the same time, establish a merchant appeal processing mechanism to fully absorb merchant and consumer opinions and balance both parties’ interests.
Malicious applications for only refunds have caused heavy losses to businesses. A merchant posted a video of a customer purchasing four items in their online store, refusing to accept one item upon delivery and taking the other three items, successfully applying for a full refund of over 1,800 yuan. The merchant’s appeal to the platform was unsuccessful, leading them to report the matter to the police.
Moreover, a women’s clothing store with sales of around 10 million yuan reported a 3.5 million yuan deduction for “only refunds” and a 3.8 million yuan deduction for “return and refund” transactions, resulting in a net loss of about 600,000 yuan after deducting various costs and expenses.
Mr. Xu, the head of a beauty brand, has recently been overwhelmed by malicious “only refunds.” A consumer purchased all the products of a certain brand across all platform stores, then used unverified allergy photos to apply for “only refunds” for all products. Xu said helplessly, “When merchants dispute the consumer’s allergy proof and request platform intervention, the brand’s after-sales service customer service rating will drop. If the score is too low, it is impossible to collaborate with influencers, so we often have to accept the loss.”
To maintain a normal commercial order, platforms need to further refine the “only refunds” rule and establish a more reasonable appeal mechanism to balance the interests of merchants and consumers, avoiding the “only refunds” rule becoming a tool for illegal profit. At the same time, businesses should also improve product quality and service levels to reduce unnecessary refund disputes.
【来源】http://www.chinanews.com/sh/2024/08-07/10264702.shtml
Views: 4