The "advanced version" of refund only is here: someone will help you "grab" the product you like

The "refund only" service of e-commerce platforms was originally designed to improve the consumer experience, but this policy has been exploited by some people and developed into a new means of "freeloading". This behavior not only harms the interests of merchants, but may also have a negative impact on the entire e-commerce environment. This article will explore the advanced version of the "refund only" service and the potential impact of this behavior on consumers, merchants and e-commerce platforms.

Nowadays, "refund only" has become the standard feature of major e-commerce platforms, and basically all mainstream e-commerce platforms have followed up on this service.

The original intention of the platform to launch "refund only" is, on the one hand, to promote self-examination among merchants and improve product quality and service levels; on the other hand, to help buyers better keep out counterfeit and shoddy products while enjoying more convenient refund services, thereby improving everyone's consumption experience.

It is precisely because of the "refund only" guarantee that consumers dare to buy with confidence.

Unexpectedly, this policy actually emboldened some "freeloaders", making these people always want to get something for nothing.

When the policy was first implemented, "refund only" mainly covered merchants with a per-order transaction value of around 20 yuan, especially some small commodities with free shipping for 9.9 yuan.

Later, it gradually covered beauty products, clothing, and even 3C home appliances and other large items. For example, not long ago we reported a case in which a netizen revealed that he successfully refunded his iPhone 15.

Although the authenticity of this matter is questionable, there are inevitably people who have this idea. And now, the "advanced version" of the refund-only gameplay is here.

A netizen shared on a social platform that he bought a mobile phone holder on a second-hand e-commerce platform. The price of the new one, including shipping, was 100 yuan, while the official website price was 158 yuan. After placing the order, the seller did not ship the product until the next day. After the netizen urged the seller, he was told that "the order has been placed at the flagship store."

In other words, the netizen saw a mobile phone holder on a second-hand e-commerce platform and paid the seller. However, the seller did not have the product. Instead, he immediately placed an order on another platform's flagship store, filling in the buyer's information such as address and phone number.

After the buyer receives the goods, the seller will "only refund". In this way, the seller earns 100 yuan without doing anything. The "poor" buyer still thinks that the seller has lost 58 yuan. If the "only refund" merchant is held accountable, the buyer will naturally be held responsible because the recipient information is the buyer.

This method of making money is "astonishing". It should be reminded that if the wool is taken too ruthlessly, it will eventually affect every consumer.

Here we have to mention the Apple after-sales policy change that once caused a sensation.

In the early years, Apple's after-sales policy in the Chinese market was relatively relaxed. If an iPhone had any problems within the warranty period, it could be directly replaced with a new one by going to after-sales service.

This policy has allowed businesses to take advantage of it, with many businesses recycling faulty phones at low prices and replacing them with new ones at Apple. After an investigation, Apple found that more than 60% of iPhone repair requests in mainland China were fraudulent.

As more and more people took advantage of the situation, Apple finally cancelled the "replacement instead of repair" policy in 2016 and switched to repair-based services. It would only replace faulty batteries, displays, motherboards and other components for free.

This has greatly eroded the interests of consumers who abide by the rules.

After canceling the phone replacement service, Apple began to vigorously promote the paid extended warranty service AppleCare+, but this service has also been ruined.

Originally, AppleCare+ was a very considerate service, with different prices for different models. After purchase, there would be additional hardware warranty, and more importantly, there would be 2 accidental damage services within one year. According to Apple's previous rules, in regions outside Japan, including China, users can purchase AppleCare+ within 60 days or within one year after purchase, which can extend the warranty period to 3 years, without additional restrictions, and the threshold is very low.

But some people with ulterior motives have started to make plans:

Low-level players share their experiences on the Internet on how to deal with accidental damage to their phones, etc. It is nothing more than quickly spending money to buy AppleCare+ and then send after-sales service to save money;

Intermediate players take out the valuable parts of their phones and sell them, then smash their phones to pieces. Since the repairmen cannot turn on the phone to diagnose the damaged hardware inside, they will usually just replace it with a new one.

More advanced players used AppleCare+'s replacement service to replace more than 1,000 fake iPhones with genuine ones.

AppleCare+ was originally a service that was purchased beforehand and enjoyed afterwards, but it was turned into a behavior of "getting on the bus first and buying the ticket later" or even malicious insurance fraud. This resulted in users in China being "treated differently", causing many domestic netizens to call it "shameful".

It is understandable to want to buy goods at a low price, and it is also reasonable to get free stuff, but any form of free stuff should not be outside the law, otherwise it would be cheating.

As ordinary consumers, we should not join this kind of "taking advantage of policy loopholes to make money without bottom line" behavior. Once the number of participants increases, it is likely to develop into a huge gray industrial chain. When manufacturers tighten or change relevant policies, ordinary consumers may lose the high-quality after-sales service that they should have enjoyed, which is not worth the loss.

At the same time, the "silence" of e-commerce platforms will also encourage the evil deeds of wool party in disguise. In the end, the platform loses its reputation and the merchants bear the losses.

In fact, domestic and foreign e-commerce platforms that have earlier implemented the "refund only" service already have a relatively mature processing procedure.

If merchants encounter unreasonable "refund only" applications, they can appeal to the platform through normal channels. The platform also supports merchants to protect their own rights and interests through legal means on issues such as "cash-back gangs".

In contrast, the "refund only" policy of some domestic e-commerce platforms is unreasonable. For example, some merchants said that the platform would send users a refund-only link before communicating with them, and there was no need to provide evidence in this process.

Overall, the "refund only" service does make it easier for consumers to protect their rights, but it also places higher demands on the platform's review mechanism, big data identification, and user credit system construction.

References:

Xinhua News Agency "Qianbilou｜"Only refund", not just refund..."

Computer News: "Buying a large number of second-hand Xiaomi products: burning WiFi, replacing with new ones... these "smart guys" are in trouble"