Recently, a video titled “Retailer criticizes online purchase of down jackets, returned after half a month of travel” has sparked attention.
On December 29th, the hashtag #RetailerCriticizesOnlinePurchaseOfDownJacketsReturnedAfterTravelingForHalfAMonth# began trending. The video creator claimed that a woman named Su from Hainan purchased a long down jacket online, wore it while traveling to Harbin, and returned the garment after half a month, with stains on the jacket and a boarding pass found in the pocket. The supplier raised doubts about the situation.
The ticket shown in the video was a boarding pass dated December 17th for a flight to Harbin, flight number PN6339, bearing the passenger’s name Su. The video quickly sparked discussions among netizens after its release.
According to “Southern Daily,” on the morning of December 29th, a social media account belonging to the suspected Su was found. This account had posted multiple responses regarding the return of the down jacket.
At 1:42 AM on December 29th, the account posted a message stating that the retailer had removed the tag from the garment upon delivery, and included screenshots of the conversation with the retailer. The screenshots revealed that the retailer admitted to accidentally removing the tag when packing the dust bag but claimed the garment was new. The conversation also showed that the buyer returned an extra-long down jacket to the retailer, who agreed to the return and issued a refund.
Subsequently, the account posted again, alleging that despite both the retailer and supplier agreeing to the return and refund, they still released the video and exposed the personal information from the boarding pass. The screenshots showed the retailer stating that the incident had impacted both parties and proposed jointly reporting the related video.
Attempts to contact the account through private messages went unanswered. Around 2 PM on December 29th, the previous responses from the account had disappeared from the main page.
“In News Now” reported that Su stated she purchased the down jacket from a Taobao shop for 633 yuan. Upon receiving the item on December 16th, she found knots in the tag and suspected the product had been resold. She questioned the retailer about it, but they denied the situation.
Su mentioned that she traveled from Sanya to Harbin and wore the jacket once from the airport to the hotel, casually placing the boarding pass in the pocket. She did not wear the jacket again afterward. Upon returning to Sanya on December 24th, she sent the jacket back and requested a return and refund, which the retailer’s backend team agreed to process.
Su believed that her return and refund behavior complied with the platform’s rules. She pointed out that the time from receiving to returning the item was only seven days, not the alleged “wearing for half a month” in the video, and the boarding pass was mistakenly left in the pocket. She also questioned the accuracy of the supplier’s video statement.
The retailer’s customer service responded that they had agreed on a refund after reaching a consensus. The controversial video was not released by the retailer but by the supplier without knowing that the consumer and retailer had agreed on the return and refund. The related video has since been deleted. Regarding the stains on the garment, the customer service stated that “the refund has been processed following the platform’s transaction procedures.”
In mainland China, incidents of “wearing and returning” have occurred frequently, sparking public debate. Not long ago, a shop owner in Heze, Shandong Province, Mr. An, reported that students from a vocational school in Yunnan purchased performance costumes from his store for a New Year’s Eve show but returned the items after the performance. The returned clothes were damaged, some with a foul smell, affecting resale and leading to direct losses of about 1,000 yuan for Mr. An. The school has initiated an investigation into the matter.
These two incidents, under discussion online, include debates among the public regarding the boundaries of the “seven-day no-reason return” policy and concerns about the bottom line of honest consumer behavior.
The rule of “seven-day no-reason return” was originally established to compensate for the information gap consumers face when shopping online. By giving consumers the “right to regret,” it builds a fundamental trust framework for online shopping.
Assistant Professor Mei Zhigang from the Sociology School of Central China Normal University commented to mainland media, stating that the “seven-day no-reason return” policy is a trust-based system. Its sustainable operation relies on the combined efforts of consumer integrity, responsible retailers, and effective platform supervision. Only by operating within the legal framework and principles of integrity can the system avoid being distorted.