Merchants cannot refuse to return goods on the grounds that they have been unpacked. The Supreme Law makes it clear that consumers can return goods if it is necessary to open them without affecting the integrity of the goods. Merchants cannot refuse to return the goods on the grounds that they have been unpacked.

Merchants cannot refuse 1 online shopping to return goods on the grounds that the goods have been unpacked. The Consumer Protection Law has set up a seven-day unreasonable return system. However, some merchants often refuse to return the goods on the grounds that they have been unpacked. Is this legal?

On March 2nd, the Supreme People's Court issued "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Internet Consumption Disputes (I)", which mainly stipulated the rights and obligations of online consumption contracts, the determination of responsible subjects, the civil liability of live broadcast marketing, and the civil liability of take-away catering, and it will be implemented on March 15.

The "Regulations" clarify that consumers have to open the box to inspect the goods because it is really necessary to inspect the goods, which does not affect the integrity of the goods. E-commerce operators claim that the unreasonable return system stipulated in Article 25 of the Consumer Protection Law is not applicable on the grounds that the goods have been unpacked. The people's court shall not support it, except as otherwise provided by law.

At the same time, the format clause that regards the receipt as qualified commodity quality has also been deemed invalid.

Article 1 of the Regulations lists unfair and unreasonable format clauses that are common in practice, such as the acceptance of goods is deemed as qualified, and the operator enjoys the right of unilateral interpretation or final interpretation. It is clear that the format clauses containing the above contents should be deemed invalid according to law.

In addition, the "Regulations" clarify that false contracts for brushing, commenting and brushing traffic are invalid and cut off the "black ash production" chain in the online consumer market.

Merchants cannot refuse to return the goods on the grounds that they have been unpacked. On March 2nd, the Supreme People's Court issued "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Internet Consumption Disputes (I)", which mainly stipulated the rights and obligations of Internet consumption contracts, the identification of responsible subjects, the civil liability of live broadcast marketing, and the civil liability of take-away catering, and it will be implemented on March 15.

Sign for the goods as qualified?

Supreme Law: Invalid format clause

Zheng, the president of the First People's Court of the Supreme People's Court, said that Article 1 of the Regulations listed unfair and unreasonable format clauses that are common in practice, such as "goods are deemed qualified after being signed" and "operators have the right to unilaterally or finally explain", which made it clear that format clauses containing the above contents should be deemed invalid according to law.

Can't I return it if I open it?

Supreme law: it can be returned without affecting its integrity.

Consumers can have a live experience when shopping in physical shopping malls, but online shopping usually can't do this. To this end, the Consumer Protection Law has set up a seven-day unreasonable return system. In practice, some merchants often refuse to return the goods on the grounds that they have been unpacked. Is this legal? There are provisions in the new regulations.

It is clear in the "Regulations" that consumers are not allowed to carry out unpacking inspection of commodities because they need to inspect them, and the integrity of commodities is not affected. If an e-commerce operator claims that the unreasonable return system stipulated in Article 25 of the Consumer Protection Law is not applicable on the grounds that the goods have been unpacked, the people's court will not support it, except as otherwise provided by law.

Gifts are free of charge?

Supreme Law: Free provision is also a responsibility.

Online shopping often comes with some gifts and prizes. Some goods are exchanged by consumers with coupons or points, or at lower prices. These are all a means of promotion for businesses. How to deal with the damage caused by prizes, gifts and exchange of goods to consumers?

The "Regulations" clarify that e-commerce operators should also be liable for damages caused by prizes, gifts and exchanged goods, and may not claim exemption on the grounds that prizes and gifts are provided free of charge or goods are exchanged.

Isn't the actual sales subject clear in webcast marketing?

Supreme Law: The live broadcast platform must indicate the actual seller.

Now there are more and more live webcasts selling goods, and there are also disputes over live webcasts selling goods. How to define responsibility? In this regard, the "Regulations" have detailed provisions on the civil liability for selling goods through live webcasts.

Article 1 1 of the Regulations stipulates the situation in which operators in the platform set up webcast rooms to sell goods, and clarifies that operators in the platform make false propaganda. Operators in the platform shall be liable for compensation.

In view of the problem that consumers can't identify the actual sales subject in the live webcast marketing in practice, Article 12 of the Regulations stipulates the responsibility of the operator of the live broadcast room.

Zheng, president of the First People's Court of the Supreme People's Court, said that Article 12 of the Regulations clearly stipulates that the operator of the live broadcast room should be able to prove that it is not a seller and has marked the actual seller, and it should be enough for consumers to distinguish. Otherwise, consumers have the right to claim that the operator of the live broadcast room should bear the responsibility of the commodity seller.

If the operator of the live broadcast room has fulfilled the obligation of prompting, the people's court shall determine the appearance of the transaction, the agreement between the operator and the operator, the mode of cooperation with the operator, the transaction process, the consumer's cognition and other factors, and leave room for case discretion and future development through more flexible provisions.

The takeaway platform failed to fulfill its censorship obligations. Do you need to take responsibility?

Supreme Law: Joint and several liability.

According to the Supreme Law, in recent years, the take-away catering industry has flourished. The advantage of online take-out ordering is that it is convenient and fast, and everyone can enjoy food without leaving home.

However, there are also some problems in practice. For example, some online catering service providers do not have any catering hygiene qualifications or even business licenses, but they use the audit loopholes of the take-away platform to conduct illegal operations.

Zheng, president of the First People's Court of the Supreme People's Court, said that Article 18 of the Regulations clearly pointed out that the operators of online catering service platforms failed to register their real names, examine and approve, or failed to fulfill their obligations such as reporting and stopping providing online trading platform services, which damaged the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and consumers had the right to claim that the operators of online catering service platforms and online catering service providers should bear joint and several liabilities.

Merchants cannot refuse to return the goods on the grounds that they have been unpacked. The Supreme Law held a press conference, issued the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Internet Consumption Disputes (I), and answered questions from reporters. The new regulations make it clear that e-commerce operators shall not claim that the seven-day unreasonable return system is not applicable on the grounds that the goods have been unpacked.

Liu Min, vice president of the Supreme People's Court No.1 People's Court, further explained the seven-day unreasonable return system. The judicial interpretation makes it clear that consumers should carry out unpacking inspection of goods, because it is necessary to carry out inspection, and operators shall not refuse consumers to exercise the right to return goods without reason on the grounds that the goods have been unpacked. Of course, consumers should also ensure that the goods are intact when unpacking inspection.

Some format clauses of online consumption contracts unilaterally stipulate that consumers shall not raise quality problems after signing for goods. For this unreasonable format clause, the judicial interpretation clearly stipulates that the format clause of "signing for the goods is deemed to be in conformity with the agreement" is invalid.

Of course, the court does not support "no return after unpacking", which does not mean that consumers can act recklessly. It should be noted that there are two prerequisites for this: "it is necessary to inspect the goods" and "it does not affect the integrity of the goods". If consumers use it for a few days before returning the goods, it is beyond the need to check and confirm the quality and function of the goods, and it is difficult to get legal support.

In addition, different kinds of goods have different standards for "integrity". For mobile phones, cameras and other electronic products, even if the appearance is intact, once there are traces of activation, authorization information, unreasonable personal use data retention, it is considered that the goods are in poor condition. Consumers should pay attention to and reasonably exercise the right to return goods without reason.