In recent years, mainland China’s e-commerce platforms have introduced the “refund only” policy – consumers can request a refund without returning the goods under certain conditions. However, the phenomenon of “refund only/not returning goods” has become rampant, with even related “training courses” on how to exploit this loophole gaining popularity, leaving merchants in distress. Analysts believe that under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, moral degradation and lack of social fairness have fostered various forms of bullying the vulnerable.
Recently, Sina Technology reported on a piece titled “30 Yuan ‘Refund Only’ Course in High Demand, E-commerce Platform ‘Freeloading Gang’ Widespread,” stating that an increasing number of e-commerce merchants are being driven mad by refund-only requests. For instance, a women’s clothing store made sales of 10 million yuan during the 618 shopping festival, but after factoring in returns and refund-only requests, ended up with a loss of 600,000 yuan.
According to reports, there are numerous paid “refund-only” tutorials online, ranging in price from 28.8 yuan to 298 yuan. Upon joining these groups, the group administrator teaches methods to exploit the system by filing complaints against merchants, taking advantage of shipping time discrepancies, and even providing detailed guidance on handling customer service calls.
In 2021, the e-commerce platform Pinduoduo introduced the “refund-only” service. In theory, the platform only supports buyers requesting refunds if the goods have not been shipped, are rejected, or there are quality issues or counterfeit products. This measure was initially intended to reduce the time and cost involved in after-sales disputes between consumers and merchants.
By combining the tactics of “low price + refund only,” Pinduoduo has gained a large number of users in the lower-tier markets, thereby increasing its traffic. In November of last year, Pinduoduo’s market value briefly surpassed 191.9 billion US dollars, surpassing Alibaba for the first time.
In recent years, major e-commerce platforms have fully embraced the “refund-only” policy and initiated price wars, escalating conflicts between buyers and sellers. A group of savvy buyers has turned “taking advantage” into a profitable industry.
“Because e-commerce is tricky, and Pinduoduo is the trickster king, that’s why this situation exists. The right to return goods and refunds used to be in the hands of the sellers, and it was our decision,” said Mr. Li, a former e-commerce merchant at Pinduoduo. He mentioned that the refund-only policy only emerged in the past two years due to the economic downturn, prompting many people to search for loopholes, while Pinduoduo has continued to tilt the scales in favor of buyers.
“We were one of the early adopters. Originally, there were traffic bonuses, but later on, it was no longer feasible. Merchants needed to pay for promotions and bidding to get orders; otherwise, they wouldn’t earn any money. Price competition is particularly fierce, and Pinduoduo’s buyers are very price-sensitive,” he explained.
According to a media investigation into women’s clothing merchants on e-commerce platforms, after the implementation of “refund-only,” the return rates for stores have surged from 10%-30% to 60%-80%, and even higher.
It’s worth noting that Sina Technology’s report on this issue quickly disappeared from the website. On July 15th, Legal Daily reported a case of “refund only, not returning goods” mediation. The case details were as follows:
Ms. Wu purchased clothing worth 11.96 yuan from a certain store on a shopping platform. Dissatisfied with the product, she requested a “refund-only” on the platform. Based on big data analysis, the e-commerce platform processed the order with a refund-only resolution.
On June 12th, the store owner, Mr. Hu, believed that this had caused certain losses to the store and sued Ms. Wu to the Zhongshan County Court in Guangxi, demanding reimbursement of the 11.96 yuan cost of the product and 800 yuan in reasonable expenses incurred for this rights protection.
Due to the small amount involved, the presiding judge mediated the case. Ms. Wu realized the lack of integrity in her “refund-only” behavior and agreed to refund the payment and bear the 800 yuan expenses incurred by Mr. Hu for this rights protection. Mr. Hu also withdrew the lawsuit. Eventually, both parties reached a settlement.
Netizens commented, “Refund only has allowed many unscrupulous buyers to benefit.” “There’s really no need for refund only; if you don’t like it, just return it all, why be greedy and suffer losses over a small advantage.” “Automatically providing refund-only links to buyers shifts the platform from a guaranteed transaction role to encouraging illegal behavior.”
Chinese lawyer Wu, in an interview with Epoch Times, expressed surprise at the industrialization of the “refund-only” practice, questioning how there could be such training aimed at teaching people to do such things. He emphasized that this behavior is fundamentally unethical and lacks the basic principles of fairness and equivalent exchange in commercial society.
“The second surprising thing is that our society has become like this? Will there really be so many people engaging in such behavior? In a normal society, people would only resort to this under circumstances where the product’s quality is in question; they wouldn’t just seek to acquire products for free,” he added.
He mentioned that in the legal profession, there have been an increasing number of such cases in recent years. Many people seek legal advice without any intention of engaging the lawyer’s services. Colleagues often raise concerns about this issue.
Wu believes that the recent court ruling was correct. However, the refund-only policy imposed by the platform ultimately undermines the interests of small businesses. In pursuit of profit growth, the platform has provided consumers or buyers with opportunities to take advantage.
“The platform and small businesses operate in an asymmetric or unequal relationship, similar to the government’s relationship with individuals. People are very vulnerable in front of them, leading to this situation. This refund policy actually reflects the lack of fairness in this society; it is the bullying of the strong against the weak,” he stated.
He noted that the impact of the recent court ruling is limited. While it may not promote deviant practices like the Nanjing Peng Yu case (man falsely accused of aiding an elderly person), it does not entirely suppress refund-only behavior. For businesses, engaging in a lawsuit for an 800-yuan compensation doesn’t cover the costs of safeguarding their rights.
Former professor Li Yuanhua at Capital Normal University, in an interview with Epoch Times, also expressed his views on the situation, suggesting that this refund tactic can be successful among people with integrity and morality. However, in contemporary China, many individuals’ moral compasses have been shattered; without valuing trust, they begin actively seeking ways to exploit and profit illicitly. This has become an inevitable phenomenon in a society devoid of morals.
Moreover, people are now sharing these methods as tutorials, and when an entire society allows or condones this, it reflects the standard of morality in that society.
“Pinduoduo uses low prices and ‘refund-only’ to quickly attract customers. As a business strategy, we cannot criticize it too much. But when prices are excessively lowered to the point of being unreasonable, it essentially disrupts the good business environment. Lower prices can only result from cutting corners and compromising on quality, where labor is not rewarded, leading to the proliferation of low-quality products,” he explained.
Regarding whether the Chinese Communist Party will pay attention to the plight of businesses, Li noted that the Party does not focus on individual business cases. It prioritizes maintaining its autocratic power and stability. As long as it is not directly harmed, it doesn’t bother with such matters. Hence, the environment under the Chinese Communist Party is one of malevolence, where people resort to malicious measures and tactics. It steadily erodes the foundation of a sound business environment.