Recently, there has been a case on Chinese e-commerce platforms that has sparked attention: some consumers have reported that when placing orders, their delivery addresses were “blacklisted” by merchants, resulting in the product pages displaying a message stating that delivery cannot be made. This topic surged to the top of Weibo’s trending list on May 8.
According to a report by the “Daily Economic News” on May 8, a netizen recently posted on social media, stating that while browsing on a certain e-commerce platform, they found a product they liked but were unable to have it delivered to their address. Upon inquiring with customer service, they were informed that deliveries were not made to that street since there were “a lot of people taking advantage” in internet slang terms. The netizen mentioned that this was the first time they encountered a situation where an entire street was restricted from receiving deliveries.
The report mentioned that in the comments section of the post, other netizens shared similar experiences. A user presumed to be a clothing merchant stated that out of the 122 packages sent to that street, 94 were refunded, with “57 of them being worn for 3 years.” Journalists from the “Daily Economic News” contacted several merchants who had blacklisted specific streets, and each of them mentioned that they did so to reduce losses caused by malicious return requests.
A female clothing e-commerce operator known as Xiao Wang (pseudonym) who had blacklisted the purchasing addresses in that street told the “Daily Economic News” that customers from that street had a higher rate of returning clothing, and some returned items showed clear signs of wear. She mentioned that some consumers would initiate refund requests just before the “7-day no reason return” deadline, and the returned clothes often had scents of perfume, foundation, mascara, and even bloodstains. She also stated that delivery company staff had informed her that there were many residents from that street engaged in the live streaming industry.
An article by “Upper Stream Finance” on May 8 also mentioned that some merchants indicated that there were a significant number of residents from that street engaged in the live streaming industry, and instances of “returning items after wearing for live streaming” were quite common, leading some stores to halt deliveries to that area.
The “Daily Economic News” further reported that Xiao Wang mentioned that even after providing unpacking rejection videos, clothing quality inspection reports, and courier evidence as complaints following such return and refund cases, the platforms often tended to support consumers and repeatedly rejected merchant’s appeals. She added that she eventually had to resort to legal means to protect her rights.
Regarding the return and refund of used items with visible signs of wear, when journalists from the “Daily Economic News” consulted the customer service of a certain e-commerce platform, they were informed that if a seller considers a buyer’s return and refund request unreasonable, they typically need to provide actual photos of the item, as well as communication records with the buyer. The platform’s regulations also explicitly state that items that cannot be used normally due to reasons such as the buyer’s improper storage, wearing, or washing will not be supported for return or exchange.
The report also mentioned that within the settings of online shopping platforms, streets are the smallest areas that merchants can choose to blacklist, with options to expand to provinces, cities, districts, and larger areas. Additionally, there have been instructional videos circulating on social media platforms about “how to blacklist specific areas where malicious orders are encountered.”
Some netizens in the comments section expressed that “blacklisting should not lead to collective punishment,” emphasizing that the actions of a few individuals should not affect the normal shopping activities of the residents of an entire street.