Current controversies regarding consumer rights protection primarily center on three major areas: novel consumer traps, the abuse of rights-protection mechanisms, and an imbalance of rights. Within the context of new consumption scenarios, merchants exploit loopholes—such as using private-domain live streaming to divert traffic for selling counterfeit goods, engaging in false advertising for niche dairy products, and enforcing "no return/no exchange" policies for blind boxes—to infringe upon consumer rights. Concurrently, mechanisms originally designed to protect consumers—such as "refund-only" policies and "professional anti-counterfeiting" activities—have been perverted by some individuals into tools for malicious "gaming the system" and extortion. Furthermore, platforms have effectively raised the threshold for ordinary consumers to seek redress by utilizing standard-form contracts that mandate arbitration in distant jurisdictions or employ "big data price discrimination" against loyal customers.
1. Infringement Traps in Novel Consumption Scenarios
With the rise of live-stream e-commerce and "private-domain traffic," methods of infringement have become increasingly covert, leaving consumers facing the dilemma of "difficulty in communication and difficulty in gathering evidence."
Private-Domain Live Streaming and the Sale of Counterfeit Goods
Some merchants utilize public platforms (such as short-video live-streaming rooms) to attract traffic by silently displaying high-value goods, thereby enticing consumers to add them on WeChat or join WeChat groups to conduct transactions within these private domains. Once consumers make a payment, they often encounter situations where the merchant abruptly closes up shop and absconds, or where the delivered goods do not match the description. Moreover, because these transactions take place outside the regulatory oversight of the public platform, seeking redress becomes extremely difficult.
"Niche Dairy Products" and Conceptual Additives
The market is rife with irregularities regarding so-called "niche dairy products"—such as camel milk, goat milk, and yak milk. Many of these products are, in reality, merely "solid beverages" or "protein powders"; their ingredient lists reveal an extremely low actual dairy content (e.g., containing only 5 grams of camel milk powder per 1,000 grams of product), with the primary ingredients being maltodextrin and flavoring agents. Yet, they are sold at premium prices under the guise of being "highly nutritious" and "safe to consume."
Return and Exchange Disputes in the "Blind Box" Economy
Merchants selling blind box products frequently refuse to honor the "seven-day no-questions-asked return" policy, citing the inherent "mystery" and "randomness" of these items as justification. Although consumers are legally entitled to return or exchange ordinary, unopened merchandise, many merchants apply a rigid, "one-size-fits-all" no-return policy—even to unopened, full-case sets of blind boxes that have not yet been shipped. This practice has sparked widespread debate regarding whether such specialized products should be granted exemptions from the protections afforded by consumer rights laws. 2. The Alienation and Abuse of Rights Protection Mechanisms
Tools designed to protect vulnerable parties—specifically rights-protection instruments and anti-counterfeiting efforts—have, in certain instances, undergone a fundamental shift in nature, transforming from "woodpeckers" (market guardians) into "parasites."
"Refund-Only" Policies vs. Malicious "Gaming the System"
The "refund-only" policy on e-commerce platforms was originally intended to lower the cost of rights protection; however, it has been exploited by a small minority of professional "opportunists." These individuals engage in high-frequency, malicious refund requests—often by swapping products or fabricating evidence of damage—causing financial losses for merchants and driving up their costs for seeking redress, thereby creating a new imbalance of power between buyers and sellers.
Professional Claims-Filing vs. "Sham" Anti-Counterfeiting
Some "professional anti-counterfeiters" have ceased targeting genuinely fake or substandard products. Instead, they have evolved to file high-frequency complaints regarding minor issues—such as labeling errors or specific advertising phrasing—solely to extort compensation. Some even resort to blackmail by fabricating evidence through tactics like "slipping in" fake items or product swapping. Judicial authorities have identified such conduct as an abuse of rights, noting that it has completely deviated from the original objective of purifying the market.
3. The Tug-of-War Between Platform Rules and Standard-Form Contracts
Large-scale platforms and corporations utilize complex user agreements to erect extremely high barriers to rights protection, thereby placing ordinary consumers at a distinct disadvantage in the event of a dispute.
Mandatory Off-Site Arbitration Clauses
Certain internet platforms (such as online travel agencies and hotel groups) embed "mandatory off-site arbitration" clauses within their user agreements (e.g., requiring arbitration to take place in Nantong or overseas). This significantly increases the time and financial burden on consumers, effectively constituting a disguised deprivation of their right to litigation; this practice has recently prompted regulatory authorities to summon these platforms for corrective talks.
"Big Data Price Discrimination" and Automatic Renewals
Consumers have raised concerns that platforms leverage their informational advantage to display higher prices to existing users (a practice known as "big data price discrimination") or to surreptitiously pre-select automatic subscription renewals, often coupled with deliberately complex cancellation procedures. Platforms frequently attempt to evade responsibility by citing "price fluctuations" or "system defaults" as justifications.
Recommendations: When engaging in high-value transactions or utilizing novel consumption models, consumers should pay close attention to the dispute resolution clauses within user agreements. Furthermore, maintain vigilance regarding transactions conducted in "private domains" (off-platform channels) and, whenever possible, complete payments through regulated, public-domain platforms. Finally, should merchants encounter professional claims-filers or malicious refund schemes, they should immediately preserve all relevant evidence and report the incidents to the appropriate regulatory authorities.
